In a recent interview for a leadership role, I was asked how I would promote gender equity. In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields - I talked about calling out inadvertent sexism in arranging speakers and in stereotyping roles in public documents.
An experience today made me think about the opposite - praising people who behave well. It was minor, two men cut across me while I was waiting to be seated at a restaurant. What was different was that the man assigning places walked around them to lead me to a table, telling the blokes that I had been there first. Fortunately I (barely) had the wit to thank him not only for seating me but for not letting the guys push in front.
I'm starting this thread to ask what are we collectively doing to reward good behaviour, or to call out bad. And what are the barriers for each?
I try, politely, to suggest that men who call me dear or sweeie or hon use those terms only for their wives or girlfriends...not a stranger.
When I was in graduate school, gender discrimination seemed to be something that had occurred to the Academy in the distant past but was not really a thing anymore.
Three institutions later, I found myself in an environment containing widespread gender discrimination. It made me angry. Female staff and female professors repeatedly sidelined/ignored by supervisors and colleagues. Female staff and female professors who were too intimidated (or tainted by other peoples' bad behaviors) to assert themselves. Institutions do not function properly when there is poor collegiality. Faculty who are too cowed to assume meaningful service and leadership duties only serve to pile on extra service and leadership on everyone else. The voice of the college is incomplete when not everyone chooses to speak out who should speak out.
Gender discrimination is inefficient. Gender discrimination is un-democratic. Gender discrimination is non-collegial. Gender discrimination is just stupid. I lean heavily on the "this is stupid!" rant when people ask me about gender equity in the Academy. My face gets red and I start yelling about wtf is wrong with a college or college department when I see that there aren't any female department heads, aren't any female committee chairs (on important committees), and all the "good" classes are taken up by the male faculty.
And then I recommend that Professor Sally should be the next department head, Professor Martha should be running the screening committee, and Professor Jackie should take over Professor Ancient White Dude's advanced senior practicum classes.
Quote from: nebo113 on September 12, 2019, 04:40:11 AM
I try, politely, to suggest that men who call me dear or sweeie or hon use those terms only for their wives or girlfriends...not a stranger.
What about women who do that? I've been in lots of coffee shops and places like that where the (female, sometimes even much younger than me) staff do that routinely for all of their customers?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2019, 10:17:40 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 12, 2019, 04:40:11 AM
I try, politely, to suggest that men who call me dear or sweeie or hon use those terms only for their wives or girlfriends...not a stranger.
What about women who do that? I've been in lots of coffee shops and places like that where the (female, sometimes even much younger than me) staff do that routinely for all of their customers?
Good question. It happened last night, as a matter of fact. From female waitstaff, it doesn't bother me so much, though I did suggest to a librarian that it was unprofessional for library staff to use diminutives. Again, I point out that I live in a very rural area that is struggling to move past 1950. Slow going.....
IF it gets too syrupy, I sometimes just say, "My name's xxxx, please don't call me "honey," thanks..."
M.
Quote from: science.expat on September 12, 2019, 02:06:36 AM
In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields
Just FYI, but this is illegal.
It's very difficult to call out the bad or reward the good when a female senior administrator has a penchant for putting white men in leadership roles.
Edited to add: that particular administrator is no longer employed here, but the effects live on.
Quote from: spork on September 15, 2019, 03:24:22 PM
It's very difficult to call out the bad or reward the good when a female senior administrator has a penchant for putting white men in leadership roles.
Edited to add: that particular administrator is no longer employed here, but the effects live on.
Unqualified white men? White men
less qualified than other people?
Without more information, it's not at all clear whether that's a bad thing or a good thing.
Quote from: pigou on September 15, 2019, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: science.expat on September 12, 2019, 02:06:36 AM
In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields
Just FYI, but this is illegal.
In the US. But not necessarily elsewhere. Just the other day, in fact, I saw an ad explicitly saying the search was for a woman. A few times a year, I've seen ads saying they're looking for indigenous people.
I think it might be legal in the US, too, if it's for a position with a special source of funding, no? I've definitely seen postdocs, and occasional endowed chairs and things, which were explicitly reserved for members of minority groups. Or did I glaze over the ambiguities and vagueness that was employed to get around the law, and focus instead on the clear message?
Not at a public institution it ain't, and probably not at a private school that takes any public funds. And even where/ if it is legal, should it be so? Really?
Quote from: pigou on September 15, 2019, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: science.expat on September 12, 2019, 02:06:36 AM
In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields
Just FYI, but this is illegal.
Not in Australia. I've done this very successfully as have universities such as Monash and Melbourne.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 15, 2019, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: spork on September 15, 2019, 03:24:22 PM
It's very difficult to call out the bad or reward the good when a female senior administrator has a penchant for putting white men in leadership roles.
Edited to add: that particular administrator is no longer employed here, but the effects live on.
Unqualified white men? White men less qualified than other people?
Without more information, it's not at all clear whether that's a bad thing or a good thing.
Come on, dude, even if the white men are just as qualified as every other applicant, the fact that the penchant is for choosing the qualified white man over the equally qualified other applicants is still a problem. Why do we still have to point this out?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 15, 2019, 05:15:37 PM
Quote from: pigou on September 15, 2019, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: science.expat on September 12, 2019, 02:06:36 AM
In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields
Just FYI, but this is illegal.
In the US. But not necessarily elsewhere. Just the other day, in fact, I saw an ad explicitly saying the search was for a woman. A few times a year, I've seen ads saying they're looking for indigenous people.
I think it might be legal in the US, too, if it's for a position with a special source of funding, no? I've definitely seen postdocs, and occasional endowed chairs and things, which were explicitly reserved for members of minority groups. Or did I glaze over the ambiguities and vagueness that was employed to get around the law, and focus instead on the clear message?
There are lawsuits and investigations currently in progress in the US alleging these special set-asides are discriminatory when using public money: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-20/women-only-science-programs-discrimination-complaints
Affirmative action (ensuring a larger pool by advertising in additional outlets and working different networks or keeping a job ad open until the pool is within representative of the total possible qualified pool) is generally legal. Using public money and stating that certain protected categories are being used to exclude candidates is generally not legal. For example, age-discrimination concerns are why some US institutions have had to go to N-years-past-PhD as a criterion for postdocs instead of stating "must be under N years old".
Here are some things I did last week:
calling it out:
"Dear person responsible for the email I just read about an event in my department, I noticed that you referred to the male speakers by their titles, first names and last names, and the female speaker by only her first name. I know we're all familiar with Dr. Amazing Woman, but it's a good idea to acknowledge her title in official communications."
working for acknowledgement
"Dear Search Committee, I'm writing to nominate Dr. She Rocks for Dean. "
mentoring
"I see you are paralyzed with stress about your application for Full professor, but it's due next week. Cancel your meetings and put off that assessment report for a week. Go home immediately and start writing. What could possibly be more important right now?"
calling bullshit
"I am not sure that putting me on that committee is efficient: I'm on four already. I notice my colleague Dr. Man-Who-Feigns-incompetence-and-thus-is never-given-service appears to be on no committees right now. Perhaps he's a more appropriate choice"
Quote from: ergative on September 16, 2019, 12:39:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 15, 2019, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: spork on September 15, 2019, 03:24:22 PM
It's very difficult to call out the bad or reward the good when a female senior administrator has a penchant for putting white men in leadership roles.
Edited to add: that particular administrator is no longer employed here, but the effects live on.
Unqualified white men? White men less qualified than other people?
Without more information, it's not at all clear whether that's a bad thing or a good thing.
Come on, dude, even if the white men are just as qualified as every other applicant, the fact that the penchant is for choosing the qualified white man over the equally qualified other applicants is still a problem. Why do we still have to point this out?
But that's just the point. It wasn't even mentioned whether the "white men" were
equally qualified, and that's my point. FWIW, my suggestion for dealing with these situations is to have short list criteria which are solid enough that anyone who meets them would be fine for the job, and then using a lottery to make the final selection so it's unbiased. In the interest of diversity, delaying the final selection until there are some* non-"white males" on the short list ensures that the process is unbiased, and that the final selection will likely reflect the makeup of the candidate pool.
*(The number required for "some" can be determined in advance, as long as any candidates meeting the criteria are included until that threshold is reached.)
Quote from: science.expat on September 12, 2019, 02:06:36 AM
In a recent interview for a leadership role, I was asked how I would promote gender equity. In addition to direct interventions - for example advertising female only roles in male dominated fields - I talked about calling out inadvertent sexism in arranging speakers and in stereotyping roles in public documents.
An experience today made me think about the opposite - praising people who behave well. It was minor, two men cut across me while I was waiting to be seated at a restaurant. What was different was that the man assigning places walked around them to lead me to a table, telling the blokes that I had been there first. Fortunately I (barely) had the wit to thank him not only for seating me but for not letting the guys push in front.
I'm starting this thread to ask what are we collectively doing to reward good behaviour, or to call out bad. And what are the barriers for each?
One possible way to promote this is to perhaps create an "ally" award that is by nomination. I like that it would give attention to the people who are being positive mentors or supporters for people who consider themselves underrepresented minorities. HOWEVER, it may be interpreted the wrong way... giving more visibility and attention to people who are in positions of power and able to be the mentor for an underrepresented individual. At the same time, I like that this would be a way to recognize individuals who have made considerable effort to support people.
My preference, however, is not to recognize the good behavior (it should be expected). I prefer education and transparency.
Training on implicit bias is at the top of my list. Women can be just as hard on other women. We all need to take stock of our biases.
Transparency is also necessary. Many people don't know how to navigate the "unwritten rules" of academia. Because there is bias in who and how we mentor people (i.e. like promoting like), I feel it's necessary to have transparent guidelines for how people are selected for positions in the university that are by invitation only. There should also be "open calls" for people to receive mentoring for career advancement that combine structured learning with one-on-one mentoring. I've seen peers get promoted into "by invitation" roles that I still have not yet been able to get access to, so I worry about my CV and being able to advance later on.
Serendipitously, I was asked this morning in the elevator by a senior male colleague from another department if I was a graduate student. I took it as a compliment of my youthful appearance and happily introduced myself as an associate professor in the department. It ended up being a positive interaction but I still wonder if I were male if the person would have simply assumed I was a faculty member.