Transgendered Neuroscientist Saw Gender Bias Firsthand - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2006, 09:54 AM   #46
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 AM
The Tonegawa/Karpova conflict could have a sexist element but more than that it is about unrestrained competitiveness. Science is a competition but sometimes it becomes ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 02:13 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
HeartlandGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 6,829
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Women who work full time earn about 76 percent as much as men, according to the Institute of Women's Policy Research.
I clipped this out of a magazine about three years ago...


"Working women make 79.7¢ on the male dollar, down from 80.4¢ in 1983. That's already adjusting for maternity leave and other child-rearing factors. If such choices are not factored in, women make only 44¢ on the male dollar. Female professionals average $10,000 less than their male counterparts. Over a 40-year career, that difference (compounded 10% annually) costs each of them $4 million."

So if you're not having babies and taking maternity and child leave, you're really getting shafted.
__________________

__________________
HeartlandGirl is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 05:27 PM   #48
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 AM
This one just arrived in my inbox (It’s pretty revolting but I have to admit that I did chuckle a bit): If women are raped because they ask for it, then why do women not get equal pay and all the other things they also ask for?
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 11:20 PM   #49
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by HeartlandGirl

So if you're not having babies and taking maternity and child leave, you're really getting shafted.
Speaking of mat leave, my second mat leave in a few years is now over. I've been working contracts in between and during pregnancies to spare a company the commitment of having to replace me for a year of leave (we have the luxury of a year up here) and now I'm in a job search for something full-time etc...

An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.

Pass the champagne.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 01:32 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja
This one just arrived in my inbox (It’s pretty revolting but I have to admit that I did chuckle a bit): If women are raped because they ask for it, then why do women not get equal pay and all the other things they also ask for?


__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:38 PM   #51
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


Speaking of mat leave, my second mat leave in a few years is now over. I've been working contracts in between and during pregnancies to spare a company the commitment of having to replace me for a year of leave (we have the luxury of a year up here) and now I'm in a job search for something full-time etc...

An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.

Pass the champagne.
Consider the champagne passed.

I'm fuming on your behalf.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:00 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Another article with some additional info

http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533761

In his provocative essay, Does Gender Matter?, Ben Barres contends that it does -- that the attitude of others in the sciences changed toward him soon after he made the switch.

"The main difference that I have noticed is that people who don't know that I am transgendered treat me with much more respect," he writes. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

That fundamental lack of respect for women is what Barres, 51, believes drives the relatively low representation of females in the world of science -- not any innate genetic inability.

For many girls, these stereotypes and stigmas may keep them from pursuing a career they might love and excel in, according to Barres. "From an early age, girls receive the messages that they are not good enough to do science subjects or will be less liked if they are good at it," he writes. "The messages come from many sources, including parents, friends, fellow students and, alas, teachers."

The essay resonated with Marianne LaFrance, a Yale professor of psychology and women's gender and sexuality studies. Her work has long focused on how being born male or female affects careers.

"The thing that's so terrific about this essay is precisely that he's a transgendered person," she said. LaFrance pointed out that Barbara and Ben Barres are exactly the same person -- in terms of their talent, creativity and intellect -- and yet Ben gets much more immediate respect from his peers than Barbara ever could.

"It raises lots of questions about just where is gender? It seems to be much more in the mind of the perceiver than it is in the person who's being perceived," LaFrance said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:16 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


An American head hunter called last week about a position in Toronto and I ended up having to defend why I've been off for a year since *technically* I could have chosen to go back to work sooner. Nice.

Pass the champagne.
But is that an instance of male bias or is it a reflection of more and more women choosing NOT to have children? If that is the case, then is that woman technically not more valuable to the company than the one who decided to take 2 or 3 years off to have kids? Or how about the woman who was super ambitious and chose to return in 16 weeks only?

I think this is a more complicated issue because we now live in a world where women themselves feel differently. If say a lawyer who wanted to make partner only took 12 weeks off for mat leave, then she contributed more to the firm than the one who took 52 weeks off, financially speaking, no?

I'm in the scientific community and what goes on is still largely disgusting. The hoops we have to jump through are immense.

But mat leave is one of those more grey areas, at least from my POV.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 04:19 PM   #54
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
But is that an instance of male bias or is it a reflection of more and more women choosing NOT to have children? If that is the case, then is that woman technically not more valuable to the company than the one who decided to take 2 or 3 years off to have kids? Or how about the woman who was super ambitious and chose to return in 16 weeks only?
It's straight up gender bias and in my experience long before my mat leaves, driven by both genders but especially by women without children. This head hunter happened to be male.

I worked contracts while pregnant so a company would not be under financial/benefits/future job obligation to me during my leaves and I would not have any professional pressure to return on a "career ambition" specific timetable.

With 10+ years of measured success before the leaves and during the contracts, does that make me more or less valuable to a future company compared to someone with comparable experience?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 04:35 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 06:52 AM
I do believe it's driven by women without children but frankly I am not sure they are out of turn.

Having children is a lifestyle choice. If you choose that and as a result you cannot work the same hours or you lose 2-3 years out of 15 due to maternity leaves and so on, then I am not sure there is a basis for complaint. The other woman chose not to take those 3 years off and contributed during that time, no?

Everyone makes sacrifices in life due to the decisions they made. People who choose to have families will have to make some career sacrifices if they want to be present and good parents. If that means that a person who decided to remain childless gets ahead before you or promoted before you or offered a new position before you, well to me I don't really see that as unfair.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:53 PM   #56
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
If that means that a person who decided to remain childless gets ahead before you or promoted before you or offered a new position before you, well to me I don't really see that as unfair.
When you support this position you then also end up supporting those same decisions on jobs, pay and promotions potentially going against any woman aged 20-45 (50% of the workforce) just by virtue of being a woman of childbearing age...whether she has children or not.

Social justice, equality and fairness aside, it doesn't make good business sense.

Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity

http://www.catalystwomen.org/files/exe/fpexe.pdf

Key findings are that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform those that have the lowest representation on ROE and TRS.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 11:48 PM   #57
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


When you support this position you then also end up supporting those same decisions on jobs, pay and promotions potentially going against any woman aged 20-45 (50% of the workforce) just by virtue of being a woman of childbearing age...whether she has children or not.

Social justice, equality and fairness aside, it doesn't make good business sense.

Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity

http://www.catalystwomen.org/files/exe/fpexe.pdf

Key findings are that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform those that have the lowest representation on ROE and TRS.
Thank you for making this point. It infuriates me beyond belief that this is still argued about.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 11:57 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy

Key findings are that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform those that have the lowest representation on ROE and TRS.
But who is to say that the majority of those women aren't career women who either chose not to have children or chose to take minimal time off?

I can tell you with absolute certainty that within my generation, speaking about professional women, many, many if not most are deciding to either not have children at all or to not take the full year off. And I can tell you they are extremely hostile to the idea that a woman who takes the year off should be considered on the same level of seniority or even value to a company. This isn't coming from men, but from other women.

If a company is looking to promote two women, both of whom have been there for 10 years, but one took say 2 and a half years off to have kids while the other one took no time off except her allotted 3 weeks annually. And say the company decides that the childless woman has brought in more money, more clients, etc, and promotes her instead. I don't see why this is an unreasonable move. In many places today where either open or unspoken quotas exist (and they do, far more often than people realize), it is less and less "we will take a man over a woman of a childbearing age" and more and more "which of these women is more valuable to us." These quotas would not result in women losing top jobs, but may result in certain women being promoted over others.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 12:22 AM   #59
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Now it seems as though you're shifting it to something else. The woman who has a definite edge over the other due solely to performance is of course the most suitable for a promotion. To say that women who have children cannot compete because they take a year off or less per child is severely undermining the ability of women and specifically working mothers. Really, it is ridiculous and insulting and so wrong on so many levels. In all levels of professional and non professional working environments women are getting shafted. We got the childbearing organs and thus have to suffer whether we have children or not. Or so it seems. Forgive me for being rather angry about that.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 02:53 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Well, the plan is when my wife and I have kids, that I'll be the one to stop working for awhile. She's a school principal, and I'm a teacher.

I think if more men could/would take time off to raise their families this might help to level the playing field. But that concept barely seems to be on the radar. I also find it intersting that women just "automatically" take on a lot of the household chores when they get married. Of all the married couples we know, my wife and I are the only the couple where we share meal preparation duties. For everyone else, the wife does all the cooking. Personally, I think we benefit because we both get a break from cooking and we tend to eat tastier meals because of that rest. Likewise, I do laundry and dishes. She cleans the bathrooms, and cleans the floors.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com