Study find sexist hiring practices in STEM jobs

hopgog

edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/

It's time more effort is put into getting equal hiring for jobs in science and engineering

Nucular Arms

In fairness by the time you get through four years of undergrad studies and a nother couple of years of grad school or equivalent spent in the company of smelly, awkward blokes you'd understand the bias..

Menas

101 people started in my year 1 engineering degree. 97 male and 4 female. By graduation 4 years later there were 30 of us left. All male.
How would you expect employers to hire the same number of females as males when there are very few graduates?

circadian

Trigger Happy wrote: »

101 people started in my year 1 engineering degree. 97 male and 4 female. By graduation 4 years later there were 30 of us left. All male.
How would you expect employers to hire the same number of females as males when there are very few graduates?

Pretty much this.

The issue isn't employers. The problem is the education system and a social one. How many young girls are encouraged/interested in engineering type skills? I'd imagine plenty are interested and show an aptitude but I think the encouragement and guidance is often lacking.

Can any females on boards comment on how these types of subjects were taught at an all girls school?

Gongoozler

hopgog wrote: »

It's time more effort is put into getting equal hiring for jobs in science and engineering

No, no its not. It's not, nor is it ever time to interfere like this. This type of interfering is sexist, so I don't know how they can justify it. No gender quotas in politics or stem jobs. No.

And I'm an IT qualified female.
I'd like to know how it's meant to work though, once you have quotas, do you force women into these jobs?

tritium

hopgog wrote: »

edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/

It's time more effort is put into getting equal hiring for jobs in science and engineering

And given the relatively higher number of female graduates in most other areas I'm assuming you'll be as vocal in starting a thread to put more effort into removing gender bias there too? Any reason why stem gets everyone's attention?

bleg

Jesus, there must be sexist hiring practices for bin collectors too.

Same with healthcare, I see more and more female doctors, pharmacists and dentists. Why aren't these people hiring men?

Donkey Oaty

They allowed Margaret Thatcher to study Chemistry at Oxford and look how that all turned out.

I'm just saying.

Gongoozler

bleg wrote: »

Jesus, there must be sexist hiring practices for bin collectors too.

Same with healthcare, I see more and more female doctors, pharmacists and dentists. Why aren't these people hiring men?

There's actually way more male doctors than female.

fizzypish

Girls? We could see them from "the window" in the Engineering building. We ofter discussed what they were. Never met one though....

Donkey Oaty

Here's an Examiner piece quoting Prof. Marie Cassidy, Chief State Pathologist:

Before taking over from John Harbison as Ireland’s State Pathologist in 2004, Cassidy was also the first female full-time forensic pathologist in the UK.
As a trailblazer herself, she is anxious to encourage young females to set their sights high. “There are women at the top in Ireland. There’s Sheila Willis, and she’s the director of the Forensic Science Laboratory in the Phoenix Park. And you also have Máire Whelan, who’s the attorney general.

“There’s no bias here if you’re good at what you do. And if you put yourself forward. So that’s what we must do — women must put themselves forward. Think about it. Think about the options. Go for the options.”

biko

Start earlier by making it cool for kids to do science. Once enough boys and girls are involved in school science the gender bias will solve itself once they start looking for work.

smash

Gongoozler wrote: »

I'd like to know how it's meant to work though, once you have quotas, do you force women into these jobs?

Essentially you just force well qualified staff into unemployment.

Blowfish

Have people actually read the article? The sexism is against men.

One eyed Jack

hopgog wrote: »

edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/

It's time more effort is put into getting equal hiring for jobs in science and engineering

OP did you even actually read your own article? The issue isn't gender bias towards men at all, in fact it's far more advantageous to women -

Our results, coupled with actuarial data on real-world academic hiring showing a female advantage, suggest this is a propitious time for women beginning careers in academic science. The low numbers of women in math-based fields of science do not result from sexist hiring, but rather from women's lower rates of choosing to enter math-based fields in the first place, due to sex differences in preferred careers and perhaps to lack of female role models and mentors.

While women may encounter sexism before and during graduate training and after becoming professors, the only sexism they face in the hiring process is bias in their favor.

Having worked in IT and specifically software development for a number of years, and having hired my own team of people (this was way back before I even became aware of this whole "sexist" claims that are coming out now), my team were all women, and one guy. I wasn't hiring based on gender, I was hiring based on their skills and their attitude (many of them were fresh out of third level education).

I remember when I was doing my degree and my experience was pretty much the same as Triggers, mostly guys, about 90 guys and ten girls, and about 20 guys and 3 girls graduated. I genuinely never thought much about genders and sexism and all the rest of that stuff at the time! Nowadays it seems that to some people, their gender is more important than actually focussing on the job itself!

That's simply wrong IMO - the best person for the job should get the job, and it should have nothing to do with their gender or employers being responsible for social engineering and redressing perceived gender stereotypes. SJW's should learn to accept that some people just have no interest in these fields, whether it be STEM or social care! If they don't have an interest in a career, we shouldn't be denying someone or promoting someone simply on the basis of their gender - people are there to do a job, not to look good.

seamus

To be fair, if you just scanned the first 3 paragraphs of the article you'd be inclined to think that this was an article about how employers favour men over women.

Anecdotally I would have to agree that women probably get a slightly easier entry into the recruitment process than men do - I've seen recruiters and colleagues get really enthusiastic about a female applicant who turns out to be a lemon after five minutes into their first interview.

I think it stems primarily from the fact that STEM tends to be such a male-heavy environment that the idea of having women in there to mix it up and make the environment more interesting is very appealing. And it's not about having eye candy or someone that you might be able to shag, but about getting a new point of view into the team.

All of the female engineers where I am are highly respected and regarded, and perhaps this means that in general men subconsciously place a higher value on female engineers than male ones.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

101 people started in my year 1 engineering degree. 97 male and 4 female. By graduation 4 years later there were 30 of us left. All male.
How would you expect employers to hire the same number of females as males when there are very few graduates?

I read a book about 15 years ago about gender equality/difference issues that discussed a survey that took place across multiple U.S. airlines in relation to the gender of their various roles, looking at why so many pilots were male and so many stewards were female.

All of the airlines were asked the question of why so many of their pilots were male, and only one airline was willing to answer; "Women don't apply to do the training course".

hopgog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

OP did you even actually read your own article? The issue isn't gender bias towards men at all, in fact it's far more advantageous to women -

I did, I it said that stem jobs where being sexist by hiring women becuase they are women, we need to have gender equality.

imitation

I have worked on a site where its overwhelming females in the labs, and almost all men in the actual plant/engineering side. To me it indicates that trying to get an even balance in any field simpy isn't going to happen. However what is really important is that anybody wants to work in a field is encouraged, that the pay is balanced and that they are supported.

I think the biggest obstacle is the pre conceptions of the 17 years picking courses thinking "thats for women" "thats for men" rather than there being some evil sexist scheme orcastrating the whole thing.

Thats not to say there arent other issues and people with the wrong sexist attitude, but I dont think that can explain only why a huge percent of engineers are dudes.

One eyed Jack

hopgog wrote: »

I did, I it said that stem jobs where being sexist by hiring women becuase they are women, we need to have gender equality.

I apologise, you're quite correct, I went back and read your opening post there again and you actually didn't say anything about women or men. It's just that nowadays whenever these threads come up, there does seem to be a general outcry that there aren't enough women in STEM careers, or there aren't enough men in social care and teaching careers, and really anyone who sees gender as part of a person's career description is the person who is actually being sexist!

When did it actually start to matter what gender the person is and when did that become more important than whether they were actually qualified and capable of doing the job?

A person's gender should never be a consideration in selection criteria if you're actually serious about encouraging people to judge men and women equally on their merits and not simply on the basis of their gender. That's not what equality means in my book anyway?

hopgog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I apologise, you're quite correct, I went back and read your opening post there again and you actually didn't say anything about women or men. It's just that nowadays whenever these threads come up, there does seem to be a general outcry that there aren't enough women in STEM careers, or there aren't enough men in social care and teaching careers, and really anyone who sees gender as part of a person's career description is the person who is actually being sexist!

When did it actually start to matter what gender the person is and when did that become more important than whether they were actually qualified and capable of doing the job?

A person's gender should never be a consideration in selection criteria if you're actually serious about encouraging people to judge men and women equally on their merits and not simply on the basis of their gender. That's not what equality means in my book anyway?

Feminists happened they don't want gender equality but gender supremacy. Unfortunately the looney left and sjw have bought into identity politics

Dog of Tears

What's so wrong about hiring sexy people?

fizzypish

Dog of Tears wrote: »

What's so wrong about hiring sexy people?

Who are these sexy people you speak of. We used to discuss these "sexy people" while looking at girls from "the window". It was a lovely was to unwind for 5 minutes before returning to the dungeon to scream "WHY WON'T YOU COMPILE YOU BITCH" or "WHY ARE YOU DRAWING SO MUCH ****ING CURRENT"....

pragmatic1

In relation to science, specifically life science disciplines, I think women are fairly well represented. The majority of my bosses have been female.

Tiddlypeeps

seamus wrote: »

All of the female engineers where I am are highly respected and regarded, and perhaps this means that in general men subconsciously place a higher value on female engineers than male ones.

In interviews and some work places I've definitely picked up on a certain amount of respect for me being a woman in my field with the qualifications and experience I have. It can be a little bit condescending, but doesn't bother me too much because it's not coming from a place of malice.

I've never been hired for a job I'm not qualified for, but it's totally possible I've been hired over equally or even more qualified men, I have no way of knowing. If that is the case then it's sexist and wrong, even tho it works in my favour I would much prefer to be treated equally.

It's possible what this study reveals is people over compensating. It's generally believed there is a gender bias at the hiring stage so people subconsciously over compensate by seeing the female candidates as more capable than they actually are. That's just speculation tho.

biko

Blowfish wrote: »

Have people actually read the article? The sexism is against men.

This is AH. If the OP cannot be arsed to post in the OP the most salient points from the article then we won't be arsed reading it.

hopgog

biko wrote: »

This is AH. If the OP cannot be arsed to post in the OP the most salient points from the article then we won't be arsed reading it.

The point was cause it was sexism in stem most people would jump to it's females that are getting the bum deal cause that's what the leftist journalists and feminists have being pushing for years and I see most jumped to that conclusion.

My nephew is doing nursing in college there are 30 in his stream and 27 are women. I would say that is the exact reverse of what you would find in a lot of engineering courses, science is different it a bit more even.

I think it is cultural more that anything else, that idea of blaming single sex convent education is only a very minor point, single sex education is blamed for sexual repression and problems with self esteem as well.

You have to ask what cultural biases make students take certain subject even when higher level maths and physics are available to them, then you would have to look at way so many female science graduates opt for a teaching career, why when you have lots of options student still choose careers along gender lines.

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

My nephew is doing nursing in college there are 30 in his stream and 27 are women. I would say that is the exact reverse of what you would find in a lot of engineering courses, science is different it a bit more even.

I think it is cultural more that anything else, that idea of blaming single sex convent education is only a very minor point, single sex education is blamed sexual repression and problems with self esteem as well.

You have to ask what cultural biases make students take certain subject even when higher level maths and psychics are available to them, then you would have to look at way so many female science graduates opt for a teaching career, Why when you have lots of options student still choose careers along gender lines.

At what point does cultural bias end and free choice begins though?

Nucular Arms

Maguined wrote: »

At what point does cultural bias end and free choice begins though?

When you're filling out your CAO forms and your dad tells you "No son of mine is going to be a bloody nurse!!"

Potatoeman

I work in IT and over the years many of the women left to work in other departments for different reasons. Some want to work with other women for the social side of things, others didnt like the long hours or out of hours that go with a lot of these jobs.

steddyeddy

pragmatic1 wrote: »

In relation to science, specifically life science disciplines, I think women are fairly well represented. The majority of my bosses have been female.

Yes sane here. 60% of my lecturers were female.