Feminist Philosophy

[Blubbartron]

If men and women can't do lab work together, why can they they do any "insert random job here" work together?

I know most of you aren't scientists, as is true of most people participating in this argument, but being a scientist is a job/profession/livelihood/whatever. There is NOTHING more special/demanding/whathaveyou about working in a lab than there is working in marketing or whatever, in essence. I know fuck all about marketing, so asking me to give a presentation on marketing unprepared would be as ridiculous as me asking you guys to present a talk on black holes unprepared.

Seriously, there is no quantifiable difference between a boss/employee and the head of a lab and their lab techs, or academic adviser and advisee. It's a job.

If labs need to be segregated then that means literally every job one could hold needs to be segregated. Sure, science is hard and demanding, but you don't get to the level of doing it professionally without already surviving numerous attempts to force people who can't handle the workload out of the field. These men and women are not there by accident.

Such absolute horseshit of a discussion, fucking hell.

As a man of science, you really disagree with the notion that scientists, by necessity, must critique their colleagues far more aggressively than in other professions? Shit, I'm only a computer scientist, and I find that to be the case. When I was looking over others' code, I crucified shit if it didn't work, because that's all that matters - it works or it doesn't. I also had to put up with female colleagues complaining to me about my code comments noticeably more than males did. Granted, I don't particularly care if someone levels the accusation of sexism at me. But I'm also young and have no one depending on me to keep a job, so I have less to lose.

[archibaldcrane]

@maroot
Saying "the trouble with girls is that when you criticize them, they cry" is most fucking definitely a judgment of women in particular.

[archibaldcrane]

In my line of work, producers have no patience or tolerance if I turn in a cut that is shit. If I'm lucky, they'll say "what the fuck is this" but usually I'd just get fired. Two editors on the show I'm currently on have already been canned for turning in shit work.

And I'm definitely not a scientist.

[Marootsoobutsu]

If men and women can't do lab work together, why can they they do any "insert random job here" work together?

I know most of you aren't scientists, as is true of most people participating in this argument, but being a scientist is a job/profession/livelihood/whatever. There is NOTHING more special/demanding/whathaveyou about working in a lab than there is working in marketing or whatever, in essence. I know fuck all about marketing, so asking me to give a presentation on marketing unprepared would be as ridiculous as me asking you guys to present a talk on black holes unprepared.

Seriously, there is no quantifiable difference between a boss/employee and the head of a lab and their lab techs, or academic adviser and advisee. It's a job.

If labs need to be segregated then that means literally every job one could hold needs to be segregated. Sure, science is hard and demanding, but you don't get to the level of doing it professionally without already surviving numerous attempts to force people who can't handle the workload out of the field. These men and women are not there by accident.

Such absolute horseshit of a discussion, fucking hell.

Having worked a fair number of different jobs... yeah, it IS more difficult having men and women together in a workplace. It DOES add a degree of difficulty. That really should not be a question. The question is whether you benefit more from the perspectives, the overall dynamic, the personalities, the whatever. If the answer is yes (and in a lot of areas, it's often yes), then go for it. I am not a scientist; I cannot speak for it, but I also have a hard time thinking that being female brings a unique advantage or perspective to lab work? It seems an occupation uniquely tied to a lack of personal identity-- though correct me if my perception is wrong.

If the idea is that there is no difference to people, then it seems weird to say "It's a strength to bring in diversity." If there IS a difference to people, then it seems weird to say that one or the other may not be more ideal for certain situations. On a much broader scale, I think my frustration with the argument at large is that on the one hand, I see "You need more female voices. They contribute something unique", but at the same time, see "We are exactly the same." It cannot be both, but it so often comes down to "Which perspective helps advance this agenda?"

[zoobernut]

It is also worth noting that it is one thing to make observations based on stereotypes but it is an entirely different thing to enact prejudicial policies based on those stereotypes. This whole argument is just stupid because if you look at negative or positive stereotypes that is a terrible way to hire or weed out candidates or drive policy. There are plenty of other ways to weed out individual candidates. Generally speaking there is no gender requirements for being a scientist. Obviously there are some jobs where physical attributes do come in to play as a requirement but we are not talking about those corner cases here.

[BerenTebogo]

I genuinely cannot express in words the amount that people do not understand the scientific community if they are not part of it.

Nobody is important enough that we should be segregating fuck all. Sure, there are absolutely some aspergers clowns who can't deal with people. We don't cater to them. They are not special. One off-hand conversation between two other researchers of any gender may yield more fruitful research than anything else produced in that lab/department/whatever for the rest of the year.

There is no guidebook for where progress will come from in science. You know where an all male, high pressure environment in a scientific field gets you? Look up bell labs scandal from the ~60s. Or the island of stability scandal from nuclear physics. I literally could source a book's worth of examples of high-pressure, all-male labs / groups who had either a member of, or the head of, crack under pressure and falsify / plagiarize data.

High pressure, publish or perish situations don't generally make for good scientific practices regardless of gender. This is well documented throughout history and still happens ALL the fucking time.

And it's almost always dudes who can't take the heat who end up falsifying data or publishing the same paper in multiple journals. Yeah, that's what I want more of. Shit science.

[Blubbartron]

In my line of work, producers have no patience or tolerance if I turn in a cut that is shit. If I'm lucky, they'll say "what the fuck is this" but usually I'd just get fired. Two editors on the show I'm currently on have already been canned for turning in shit work.

And I'm definitely not a scientist.

Yeah, that's also a big difference between science and other professions. Science is often more about the iterative success than the initial success. You have to critique your colleagues to ensure the next iteration is better than this iteration, but you will also remain colleagues after repeated harsh critiques much more frequently than other professions. Because of that, the ability to take criticism well is important. It doesn't matter if you take harsh criticism poorly if they're more likely to just fire you when you fuck something up.

Also, I have to run for a few hours, shit to do. I'll respond more when I get back. Maybe I can create some more things for archi to take out of context for his sig.

[BerenTebogo]

Yeah, that's also a big difference between science and other professions. Science is often more about the iterative success than the initial success. You have to critique your colleagues to ensure the next iteration is better than this iteration, but you will also remain colleagues after repeated harsh critiques much more frequently than other professions. Because of that, the ability to take criticism well is important. It doesn't matter if you take harsh criticism poorly if they're more likely to just fire you when you fuck something up.

Also, I have to run for a few hours, shit to do. I'll respond more when I get back. Maybe I can create some more things for archi to take out of context for his sig.

Seriously, I know you probably haven't had a chance to digest my above posts, but do not make me come back here later tonight and link you to more articles than you could read in the rest of your life about men, well-respected men who were sometimes even the heads of their fields, cracking under pressure and completely pulling stuff out of their ass. I could bury you in examples without ever leaving the discipline of physics.

It is partially due to the inherent discrepancy between the number of women vs. men in high pressure scientific fields, but if you look at the occurrence rate of who is doing the falsifications in the hard sciences (men vs. women) the % difference is absolutely not the same % difference as the number of men vs. women in the field.

It is precisely dudes just like this guy, nobel winners and stuff, who are the highest risk for buckling under the pressure of not being able to follow-up their previous work with work of the same caliber. Any emotional arguments you may want to make about men vs. women regarding who takes criticism better and who is more likely to buckle under pressure in science is either going to A) completely made-up bullshit that you (or anyone) is pulling directly out of their ass or B) demonstrates that men are far more likely to be the source the of the problems this dude is blaming on non-segregated workplaces.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I genuinely cannot express in words the amount that people do not understand the scientific community if they are not part of it.

Nobody is important enough that we should be segregating fuck all. Sure, there are absolutely some aspergers clowns who can't deal with people. We don't cater to them. They are not special. One off-hand conversation between two other researchers of any gender may yield more fruitful research than anything else produced in that lab/department/whatever for the rest of the year.

There is no guidebook for where progress will come from in science. You know where an all male, high pressure environment in a scientific field gets you? Look up bell labs scandal from the ~60s. Or the island of stability scandal from nuclear physics. I literally could source a book's worth of examples of high-pressure, all-male labs / groups who had either a member of, or the head of, crack under pressure and falsify / plagiarize data.

High pressure, publish or perish situations don't generally make for good scientific practices regardless of gender. This is well documented throughout history and still happens ALL the fucking time.

And it's almost always dudes who can't take the heat who end up falsifying data or publishing the same paper in multiple journals. Yeah, that's what I want more of. Shit science.

See, this becomes a more legitimate conversation starter (at least in my mind).

In this case, we are not arguing "It's bad because discrimination!" The argument you are presenting here is, "The mega-testosterone environment is toxic to good science." In this case, the female influence is contributing something positive-- the differences added contribute to a better work environment. You are presenting a case of positive discrimination: bring in women, because they help diffuse this hyper-aggressive situation. And if that leads to better science (and I have no reason do doubt you that it does), then yeah, fire the guy-- not because of discrimination, but because he's not doing good science.

But it should be noted that we're talking mental differences here, not just physical: if the "all male, high pressure environment" Sath's talking about is something that would be there with women *also*, then we have no difference, and now we're looking at a wider agenda vs. personal observation, and I guess in this case favoring the agenda over the Aspie. Which, I guess, whatever-- everyone has their pet causes.

[zoobernut]

My wife has worked in many scientific research labs in the private sector and the educational sector. She had to work with a lot of women. You know what happened? There was catty bullshit just like at any other job but the job still got done and people moved on with it. I don't get why you think that science labs are so special that they need special consideration above other jobs.

There are stupid people out there that do stupid shit at their jobs and behave poorly it has nothing to do with gender. You deal with it and move on.

[Cal]

Yeah, that's also a big difference between science and other professions. Science is often more about the iterative success than the initial success. You have to critique your colleagues to ensure the next iteration is better than this iteration, but you will also remain colleagues after repeated harsh critiques much more frequently than other professions. Because of that, the ability to take criticism well is important. It doesn't matter if you take harsh criticism poorly if they're more likely to just fire you when you fuck something up.

Er, I'd say that all STEM fields tend to be pretty high in critiques. I can't speak for others since the only field I've ever worked in is engineering, but I'm fairly sure that most - if not all companies - have some sort of critiquing process. Hell, one of my best friends works in a chem lab - and she's certainly more capable at not just running the experiments, but to also take criticism, than many of her colleagues.

(snip)

The amount of scandals in general in STEM fields can be pretty astounding. There are also tons of lawsuits related to similar situations in programming - reverse engineering laws exist for really sad reasons (not shitty ones, just sad ones), and I have to sign an NDA for any company I've worked with for a variety of reasons. After having worked in some research myself while in college (electrical grids), I would have to agree that the general pressure to secure grants and get specific results tends to lead to overall shit studies if scientists/engineers aren't careful.

Less related, I would also say it isn't even just trying to get a specific perspective. No, I don't believe that there's something "magical" that women bring to the table in science that a man can't. However, I do think we limit ourselves if we simply segregate a group due because reasons. The earliest programmers were women, for example; what's now considered a STEM field's branch used to be considered secretary work. If we try to segregate half of the population of creative individuals, limiting their interactions with the other half, then we're also not stirring the pot for discussion. As another person pointed out, offhand discussions can get more done than we realize.

My wife has worked in many scientific research labs in the private sector and the educational sector. She had to work with a lot of women. You know what happened? There was catty bullshit just like at any other job but the job still got done and people moved on with it. I don't get why you think that science labs are so special that they need special consideration above other jobs.

There are stupid people out there that do stupid shit at their jobs and behave poorly it has nothing to do with gender. You deal with it and move on.

The dickswinging contests I've experienced were facepalmworthy at other locations. By which I mean, so much of this yes.

[NynJa]

And it's almost always dudes who can't take the heat who end up falsifying data or publishing the same paper in multiple journals. Yeah, that's what I want more of. Shit science.

And whats the ratio of men to women in the field of science?

[Psion]

At the calscience lab I work at, it's pretty much even, maybe slightly more females. I have yet to see one of them cry, or even come close.

Though when the big boss comes yelling at the top of her lungs, maybe we all feel like crying a little. It always means a big rush order or something. >_<

There's about 100 people in our building alone, btw. All three combined have maybe 200ish.

[Blubbartron]

Seriously, I know you probably haven't had a chance to digest my above posts, but do not make me come back here later tonight and link you to more articles than you could read in the rest of your life about men, well-respected men who were sometimes even the heads of their fields, cracking under pressure and completely pulling stuff out of their ass. I could bury you in examples without ever leaving the discipline of physics.

It is partially due to the inherent discrepancy between the number of women vs. men in high pressure scientific fields, but if you look at the occurrence rate of who is doing the falsifications in the hard sciences (men vs. women) the % difference is absolutely not the same % difference as the number of men vs. women in the field.

It is precisely dudes just like this guy, nobel winners and stuff, who are the highest risk for buckling under the pressure of not being able to follow-up their previous work with work of the same caliber. Any emotional arguments you may want to make about men vs. women regarding who takes criticism better and who is more likely to buckle under pressure in science is either going to A) completely made-up bullshit that you (or anyone) is pulling directly out of their ass or B) demonstrates that men are far more likely to be the source the of the problems this dude is blaming on non-segregated workplaces.

I'll grant you that those things happen, but I won't grant you that they're terribly equivalent to what's been discussed here. Critiquing work is fundamental to science. The way that science is funded, and the social expectations of someone who has previously made a breakthrough to continue making breakthroughs are not fundamental to science. They are sad facts of reality, as it stands. The biggest difference is that there is a possibility that we can remedy the situations causing people to crack. There isn't really a way to alleviate the emotional toll of criticism on people without diminishing the amount of criticism, which is bad for science.

[zoobernut]

I'll grant you that those things happen, but I won't grant you that they're terribly equivalent to what's been discussed here. Critiquing work is fundamental to science. The way that science is funded, and the social expectations of someone who has previously made a breakthrough to continue making breakthroughs are not fundamental to science. They are sad facts of reality, as it stands. The biggest difference is that there is a possibility that we can remedy the situations causing people to crack. There isn't really a way to alleviate the emotional toll of criticism on people without diminishing the amount of criticism, which is bad for science.

So don't diminish the amount of criticism. I really don't get your point. The world doesn't end when someone cries at work. They get over it and go back to work or they don't and they find a new career. The crying itself doesn't hurt science. If someone cries from criticism but then listens to the criticism and does a better job so they don't have to cry again then the criticism did its job and they move on. If they can't handle the pressure and crying too much then they quit and choose a different career.

Again this has nothing to do with gender at all in any way shape or form and it is blatantly stupid to equate it to gender. It applies to everyone.

[Enkidu]

As a PhD in Organic Chemistry I can say that I've never worked with a woman that hasn't been able to take criticism when it came to their work. My PI was an old semi-famous guy and sometimes pulled the "you must have done it wrong because you're a woman" card, but honestly he did that to everyone in different ways.

I also don't really agree about lab romances. When it's between students it's really not that big of a deal for a number of reasons, in many ways it's a good thing. Of course a PI getting involved with a student is always bad news.

PI's wanting to fuck their students isn't a new concept though, and in these cases I think it's almost better that they don't hire people they want to fuck. Saying it out loud is pretty stupid though, but hey old famous guys don't really give a shit anyways.

Harsh critiques are also often from PI to student, or more generally post-doc to student. Student to student interactions are generally less harsh. The harshest criticism you'll ever see in a scientific lab are from referees in journals/grant committees though, they can be ruthless.

[BaneTheBrawler]

There was catty bullshit just like at any other job

Is it my observation that for most people, high school never ends.

[zoobernut]

Is it my observation that for most people, high school never ends.

Very true. Sad but true. For a lot of people the height of their life was high school and they don't know what to do once it is over so they do their best to get that feeling again.

[Blubbartron]

So don't diminish the amount of criticism. I really don't get your point. The world doesn't end when someone cries at work. They get over it and go back to work or they don't and they find a new career. The crying itself doesn't hurt science. If someone cries from criticism but then listens to the criticism and does a better job so they don't have to cry again then the criticism did its job and they move on. If they can't handle the pressure and crying too much then they quit and choose a different career.

Again this has nothing to do with gender at all in any way shape or form and it is blatantly stupid to equate it to gender. It applies to everyone.

As the guy in the original article was saying, when a woman cries as a result of critiquing by her male boss/colleague, the man that just made her cry will attempt to change his behavior to make her not cry. It's deeply instinctual behavior, because yay evolution. Fucking empathy is a bitch sometimes. That's why the logical conclusion is to simply let women do science with women, and men do science with men. Each are more likely to understand and communicate with their own kind better. It's a game of likelihoods, not about being absolutely correct and fair to each individual.

[zoobernut]

As the guy in the original article was saying, when a woman cries as a result of critiquing by her male boss/colleague, the man that just made her cry will attempt to change his behavior to make her not cry. It's deeply instinctual behavior, because yay evolution. Fucking empathy is a bitch sometimes. That's why the logical conclusion is to simply let women do science with women, and men do science with men. Each are more likely to understand and communicate with their own kind better. It's a game of likelihoods, not about being absolutely correct and fair to each individual.

I am not sure how you can make the claim in the bold above. You are oversimplifying a terribly complex subject. There is far more to whom gets along with whom than their gender. If this is your goal then this is a stupid way to go about it. Why not just do extremely intense long psychological evaluations to fit people together who will work well together? I also still have not seen a compelling reason from you on why this is an issue that needs to be singled out just in the field of science. This is an issue no matter where you go or what your job is. You always have to deal with interpersonal issues when working with other people. Don't want to deal with interpersonal issues? Then work alone. You are trying to mitigate the condition of being human.


Edit: If what you said were true then they would never allow women to be astronauts. Spending many months isolated on the ISS with a small crew is a high intensity situation and very deadly if anything goes wrong.