Inside Higher Ed has more on the Yale study:
Female scientists were as likely as male scientists to evaluate the students this way. For instance, the scientists were asked to rate the students' competence on a 5-point scale. Male faculty rated the male student 4.01 and the female student 3.33. Female scientists rated the male student 4.10 and the female student 3.32.
Even I still catch myself thinking of a stereotypical doctor as a guy with a stethoscope, despite the fact that I've had female doctors for my entire adult life. It's harder to get rid of these biases than we think.
The statistic about the decline of women studying computer science is taken from this NY Times op-ed by Stephanie Coontz.
As upsetting as the "War on Women 2012" has been, I managed to keep my cool, I think, until last week or so. But at some point between the Masters Tournament at creepy Augusta National and the character assassination of Hilary Rosen (whose perfectly valid point was twisted wildly by everyone from the Romneys to the NYT's clueless Frank Bruni), things hit critical mass, and I truly began to question the wisdom of being born female.
IBM is one of the top sponsors of the Masters Tournament. Its CEO has historically been granted membership at Augusta National, which is denoted by a highly-coveted, silly green jacket that evokes shades of Rodney Dangerfield-meets-Richie Rich. Well, what to do when the CEO is a lady? Because that's what the current top dog at Big Blue, Virginia Rometty, happens to be. Apparently, if you're Augusta, you still deny her membership, so that she's forced to wear the crumpled pink jacket she brought balled-up in her roller luggage. (Just kidding; I'm sure her corporate jet has a very nice place to hang jackets!) Another day, another chick hits the Grass Ceiling.
I'm sure I'll get some emails saying, "They're a private club and they can do what they want!" While this may technically be true, it still doesn't mean they're not a bunch of retrograde douchesprockets.
I'm sensing a distinct lack of outrage over the Wal-Mart sex discrimination ruling, probably because it's more complicated an issue than a politician tweeting boner pics. In a nutshell (er, no pun intended), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against female employees being able to file a class-action lawsuit, with all three female justices dissenting. Scalia, refusing to see any correlation in the vast statistical and anecdotal evidence, said the myriad women who faced discrimination must confront the retail Goliath individually. Never mind that the top brass at Wal-Mart turned a blind eye to everything. The discriminatory managers were just a few thousand bad apples! Oh, and as Ruben Bolling points out in this week's "Tom the Dancing Bug" Scalia's son is on the Wal-Mart legal team.
I recommend this post by Adam Serwer on The American Prospect for more on the ruling. Key grafs:
Not only do you have to prove the "old boy network exists," but now you have to do it under a higher standard of proof than ever before. Where discrimination operates as unconscious or unacknowledged bias, rather than as a deliberate, concerted effort to bar one particular group of people from advancing, even where the systemic impact is clear, the conservative justices see no evil.
Scalia's opinion reflects the deeply flawed view that intent is required for discrimination, and that nominally being opposed to discrimination is by itself an effective bulwark against discrimination occuring. As Ginsburg wrote in her partial dissent, "Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware."
Or, as this USA Today editorial points out:
Many legal experts say Monday's decision will make it difficult to bring cases unless there is an overt policy of discrimination. That seldom happens. Companies don't write out discriminatory policies for the world to see.
What good is outlawing sex discrimination de jure if it cannot be applied de facto? But hey, we saved the world from Anthony Weiner's pixelated wang.
Little-noticed last week amidst the hubbub surrounding airport security machines was the torpedoing of the Paycheck Fairness Act at the hands of Senate Republicans. The fact that it took me some effort to find out the specifics of the bill shows you just how little it's being talked about. To put it briefly, it actually gave teeth to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which, while noble in sentiment, was very difficult for women to put into practice. This site gives an excellent rundown of the situation (see point #2 in particular).
Before anyone comments or sends me email about how the pay gap is a myth because ladies make babies, I suggest reading the entirety of the two links provided above. Then you can make your dunderheaded remark that only reinforces my opinion that you'd make a sucky boss. (Actually, most SlowpokeBlog commenters seem pretty smart, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun.)
Also, enough with the corporate-supremacist twaddle that the Paycheck Fairness Act is "bad for business." As if hordes of suing women are going to upend the economy. Sorry, I think banking deregulation beat us to it! If the GOP trots out its faux concern for small business one more time, I'm... I'm... I'm going to draw another cartoon, dammit.