?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Invincible M.A.E.


Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Mae
harleymae

Badass Ult!

The main purpose of this post is to announce that I am currently the #1 Badass Ult in Puzzle Pirates for the Viridian Ocean.

All of you can now officially refer to me as "badass". You can start now.

Just had a yummy lunch at Cheesecake Factory with my second cousin. I now have enough food (chicken and biscuits--biscuits are my new thing) for two more meals. *burp*

Finished reading California Girl by T. Jefferson Parker last night and really enjoyed it. It's a mystery set in SoCal in the '60s and I think what appealed so much to me about it is its unsentimental description of the time, place and atmosphere. It bugs me when people sentimentalize the past.

Also just read a very interesting article about a transgendered scientist who argues that it's bias rather than biological differences that account for why there are so few top women scientists. This was the bit of evidence that was the most convincing to me:
In his essay Barres points to data from a range of studies showing bias in science. For example, when a mixed panel of scientists evaluated grant proposals without names, men and women fared equally. However, when competing unblinded, a woman applying for a research grant needed to be three times more productive than men to be considered equally competent.


Barres examines gender, science debate and offers a novel critique


  • 1
Congratulations Your Badassness!

I've long known what a badass you are. You've topped many lists, Puzzle Pirates are just now catching on. ;)

What is ULT? PP is so arghhh but I still keep on playing!

Ult = ultimate, the skill ranking for a puzzle. Hee, what ocean do you play on?

Haha! You are badass. Not that anyone ever doubted.

My puzzle pirates won't log on anymore :-(

That is an interesting finding. Alhtough, I remember one study that followed kids from middle school to college, boys and girls gifted in math and science. They had the same amount of encouragement from parents and teachers, the same opportunities to learn more and advance and get ahead in math and science, and yet the boys, upon getting to college, were significantly more likely to major in a "hard" science and to stay within their major while the girls were more likely to go into humanities, law, psychology or pre-med and to take a broad liberal arts base too.

Which I suppose could lead you to believe that biological differences account for the greater proportion of male scientists to female while bias might still apply when it comes to advancement and prestige.

Eep! What happens? It just locks up? Maybe you could try downloading again and re-installing.

I think there's a couple of things going on here... while boys might tend towards sciences and girls towards arts, this doesn't necessarily imply that girls who do have the aptitude for science are going to not be able to reach the pinnacle of their field.

Also, a study like that is just so broad... presumably these kids aren't kept in a bubble, so there's interaction with other people, exposure to media, movies, television, etc that might have a greater effect than the influence of parents and teachers.

No it just claims to be logging on indefinitely and never actually does.

Well, I thought that's what the grant application study looked at, that there was an inherent bias against women in science.

Of course, but family data was included with regards to siblings -- parenting style with boys and girls was found to be the same. I remember that issue coming up in class and the study having addressed it, unfortunately I can't remember specifics. However the authors concluded that women tended towards fields that involved more interaction with people -- hence medicine and psychology rather than chemistry and physics. It wasn't a science vs arts dichotomy.

Reading through this...I've read studies like the one you describe, but it reads like you're trying to use those studies to refute the findings of Barres's study?

I think both lines of research are valid, but trying to compare them or use one to argue against the other seems akin to trying to compare oranges and grapefruit (not quite apples and oranges). The studies you cite explain why there are less women getting to the point of Barres's study, but not what happens to them when they *do* get to that point, which was the object of the quote Mae shared.

If you were just adding more info to the larger issue of 'why there seems to be less women in the hard science field', then feel free to ignore this observation. :)

No, as I already said in my first comment, studies of the type I described offer an explanation for why the proportion of female scientists to male scientists in many "hard" science fields is still not equal; the second looked at bias once they were there. Obviously those are different things.

Hmm, it sounds like there's some kind of firewall thingie going on there. This might help. I haven't had problems connecting myself so I haven't tried it out.

See... I am doubtful that they were able to accurately determine that parenting style was "the same". I'm sure the people who shut down grant applications for women vs men all believed that they were unbiased. But, just from empirical experience, I can buy that a larger proportion of women are more comfortable with "people" jobs.

I feel like what they specifically looked at was the parents' treatment with regards to encouragement towards their aptitudes and future careers with their male children and their female children and found that they were being raised essentially "the same". I miss my e-journal subscription now :(

(Deleted comment)
Hehe, I hadn't been there before, I don't think. I has their white chocolate raspberry cheesecake. Mmmmmmmmm...

However, when competing unblinded, a woman applying for a research grant needed to be three times more productive than men to be considered equally competent.

I really hate that that doesn't surprise me. It's very interesting stuff though; thanks for the link.

This reminds me of something I read in Blink, where women were never chosen to play the horn instruments in the symphony in auditions, but when they held a blind audition (because one of the people trying out was the son of a conductor) they selected a woman.

The interesting conclusion was that the author argues that it wasn't so much a conscious prejudice, but various ingrained biases that made it sound worse to the judges; the general belief that women weren't physically capable of playing the horn as well as men.

The interesting conclusion was that the author argues that it wasn't so much a conscious prejudice, but various ingrained biases that made it sound worse to the judges; the general belief that women weren't physically capable of playing the horn as well as men.

Ah, that makes sense, too. I love when people try to argue that sexism is a dead issue. I would cry with joy if it were as simple as achieving wage equality or something (like even THAT's resolved. Ugh).

  • 1