Women Still Struggling For Recognition: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

STREETWISE

Women still struggling for recognition

Achara Deboonme

BANGKOK: -- Germany, Thailand, South Korea and the International Monetary Fund all have female leaders That could convince some that the gender gap is narrowing, but this is far from reality.

The world's population is 7 billion, and half is female. But globally, only a small percentage of women hold managerial positions. Thailand does not buck the trend in this regard; despite its higher ratio of females, only 15 per cent of its 500 MPs are women.

newsjs

And only a few are present in boardrooms. Throughout my career, I've interviewed uncountable numbers of male company presidents, but only a few female ones. Through its 70-year history, the Bank of Thailand has had only one female governor, Tarisa Watanagase. Marking its centennial anniversary this year, Siam Cement Group has never had a female chief. Notably, there are no women on the 10-member board of directors.

At the World Economic Forum 2013 in Davos, it was reported that only 15 per cent of the delegates were women. Among them was Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF and former chairman of legal firm Baker & McKenzie.

"Gender inclusion is critically important, and, frankly, too often neglected by policy-makers. In today's world, it is no longer acceptable to block women from achieving their potential," stressed the IMF chief at the Women in Economic Decision-Making session.

The figures show that despite apparent changes around the world, women have to work harder than men to climb the social and economic ladders. One example emerged last weekend, when a Japanese pop star from the band AKB48 showed up in a video with a shaven head and in tears. Singer Minami Minegishi performed the traditional form of penance in Japan, just to maintain her status in the band, after she was snapped leaving her boyfriend's apartment. Yes, having a boyfriend violates the strict band rules that all members must stay single.

In the tape, posted on the band's website, Minami weeps as she says: "I don’t believe just doing this means I can be forgiven for what I did, but the first thing I thought was that I don't want to quit AKB48. If it is possible, I wish from the bottom of my heart to stay in the band. Everything I did is entirely my fault. I am so sorry."

It is beyond imagination that this rule still exists and there are people out there obeying it just to maintain their social status. When male singers are free to mingle with female fans, who would believe that there are such rules for female singers?

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has to demonstrate toughness. Rarely showing up at social functions before coming to power, she became a public figure overnight. Now, everything she does - stumbling with words or her choice of clothes - becomes a topic of daily conversation.

Living in a man's world is tough, and the rise of women leaders does not mean a particular boost for women's potential in certain societies. Yingluck has to proceed with her brother's populist legacy, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye is doing the same thing. It is believed that her election victory was due largely to her promises to provide free childcare for under-fives, and to subsidise social security contributions and university tuition feess for the poor. Yingluck has initiated the women's development fund - a vehicle to provide them with career credits - but the project remains far from successful.

The rise of women brings about some social changes. At the national level, nobody cared about male former prime ministers' dress sense, but now all eyes are on Yingluck's. At my office, one of my colleagues made a joke when lots of bouquets arrived to congratulate me on promotion.

It is the whole world that needs to prepare for changes.

While Lagarde believes that women have the potential to grow, as they control 70 per cent of global consumer spending, women still have to shoulder more of a burden when it comes to family matters. Certainly, this holds many women back. How many men these days would quit their jobs if their wives are promoted and relocated to a place far from home? One woman complained that men are praised when they rush home to sit by the bed of their sick kids, but women are not, and are traditionally required to do so as part of their family responsibility.

What if women revolt? There are some signs that they will.

Globally, urban women tend to stay single, or, if married, tend to have fewer children. In Singapore, the government shows its gratitude to women by allowing them to leave the office on Wednesday afternoons to be with their families. But even with that and free tuition for their kids, more Singaporean women prefer to stay single.

"Today's women can no longer tolerate men's nonsense," said a female diplomat. "They can support themselves financially. At the top of their mind is to buy things they want and travel."

And now, this is resulting in a lower birth rate. Singapore now has a headache over this problem, as the number of migrant workers seems to grow faster than the number of its own citizens.

This will also be the case in Thailand, as more women dare to be different. The gender gap still be wide now, but like technological advancements, major changes could emerge in the foreseeable future when more women realise their potential.

-- The Nation 2013-02-05

[Buchholz]

Yingluck has initiated the women's development fund - a vehicle to provide them with career credits - but the project remains far from successful.

Indeed, yet another high visible, but poorly conceived, haphazardly implemented, and without requisite oversight, it's sliding into the same abyss as other campaign pledges like 15,000 baht guaranteed salaries for university grads.

Being introduced into the world of politics by a brother referring to her as his clone hasn't exactly moved the women's movement forward. Her latest hollow claims of being "the real PM" continues that stalling.

.

[Pimay1]

It's like my ex brother-in-law said. All women have to do to get control is keep their legs closed.

[ChrisY1]

The womens fund in Thailand was allocated 7 Billion Baht months ago, the aim was to promote women in business, politics and the importance of their roles in community.......and not a word in the press about the success or otherwise of the program....

Obviously, no-one cares.....

[ChrisY1]

It's like my ex brother-in-law said. All women have to do to get control is keep their legs closed.

I'm not too sure that this works in Thailand....so many alternatives available!

[Pimay1]

It's like my ex brother-in-law said. All women have to do to get control is keep their legs closed.

I'm not too sure that this works in Thailand....so many alternatives available!

Good point.

[Morden]

I have no problem recognising women, although there have been a few close shaves.

[Thai at Heart]

All discussing issues from around the world, and yet a woman cannot fill one very singular important role in Thailand.

[cup-O-coffee]

How about the issue of women recognizing women? I hear a lot about that being a real problem. Women are vicious when it comes to same gender competition and they will stoop to any means to screw out their sisters from getting a ladle of gravy. Yes, men are <deleted>, but we're loveable <deleted>. Women are absolute cutthroats towards their own when it comes to giving a hand up. Men have the buddy system. Women don't. They are Lone Rangers in the business world who have more men friends than women, because women don't trust women in business. Isn't this true generally speaking? This is what I have heard, watched and read a lot about, and even hollywood promotes that idea.

[ChrisY1]

I have no problem recognising women, although there have been a few close shaves.

Occupational hazards.....we all have them!!

[h90]

The SME who are our customer are to >70 managed by women. And that is a technical business.

Some of these companies have 50 staff, so they aren't so small as some may imagine when they hear SME.

[Kananga]

Thailand new 'hub' of feminism?

[hellodolly]

All discussing issues from around the world, and yet a woman cannot fill one very singular important role in Thailand.

Thailand is a bad example of equality for women.

They have an incompetent PM who is a women. Not exactly a leg up for the movement. More of an argument against equality.

Now if she was competent that would make an immense difference.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Look back in to her business career. It is most notable for it's reliance on her family and once she left business the position was abolished as meaning less.

I am not that conversant with the politicians but I am sure there is a female in Politics who could make women proud with her accomplishments if she was given the Office of Prime Minister. In the mean time Thailand will present a clone of a criminal to the world.

[Plastic Brontosaurus]

The funny thing is, the measure of "equality" and "success" for people in general, and in this case women in particular, appears to be pay and career. However are these really the most important yardsticks to measure equality and success? It is a convenient thing (after all we live in a capitalist world), and, far as I know, has been pushed by the feminists and equal rights movements for decades.

But should women be exactly in the same careers as men, to prove they have achieved equality? And is the number of women in boards and as CEOs the global measure of equality between the sexes?

In my world, women and men are different, and the difference between women and men is one of the things that I enjoy most in life, and the women that I share my life with, enjoy too. Yet if one looks at many of the women who have reached the top of global career ladders (such as Christine Lagarde; others that come to mind include Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, to name a few), these women seem to have lost some female traits along the way. They have more "male" characteristics, at least in the way they present themselves, than most women I know. Perhaps that is the aim of this equality thing the article focuses on: erase the differences, and as men earn more money, let all women become more like men - so they can climb career ladders better and earn the same as the guys.

To say it differently, my view is that many of the women who did manage to climb to the top of these career ladders, did so by shedding female characteristics and adapting to a male world, at least to a degree. And the aim of the movements supporting this seems to be to increase this phenomenon. In Europe, they are trying to force boards to have a certain % of women, by law. Because to them, the measure of success is the number of women on boards and as CEOs and similar. Which I think is absurd. The author of the article seems surprised that Siam Cement Group never had a female boss. It's cement, for chrissakes... Women don't climb through the ranks of the builders world to become CEO of a Cement Group. Because most women don't want to work in construction; they have a feminine focus and are simply not interested in that area. Women and men are not the same physically and psychologically and that's a good thing. Why try and erase that difference for the sake of yet another "ism" (or money and career ladders)?

Don't get me wrong - I do support true equality: same pay for same work, same rights for women and men in all parts of society. But being on a board, or becoming a CEO is an achievement (as a result of deploying specific personal traits/characteristics), not a right. And let's face it, most people, including the far majority of men, don't aspire to be a CEO or a board member, with all the dogged determination to get there, and once the position is reached, the extreme stress that often comes with the job. Some women will be interested in such a career path and position, as are a probably somewhat larger number of men. But I don't think the level of interest in those roles is that great, and the people that are interested will be mostly men, as this type of role is not something many women would aspire to - they are smarter than wanting the stress that comes with them, and lack the historical "expectation" to achieve this kind of "life result", that often drives men to get there.

To repeat what I said before: at least in my world, women are different. They have feminine "soft" traits that they may not get paid for, but that may just be because these traits cannot be valued in money in today's world. But they can be valued personally and by society in non-monetary terms. I believe these traits are highly valuable and need to be encouraged, not steamrolled over to be replaced by male or semi-male values in order to achieve a board-room role or a half a million dollars a year salary. Career and money - is that all that counts anymore? Are women really less happy because they are not in a board room? I don't believe so. How about measuring success in life by how happy and fulfilled we are, rather than by career or money: man or woman - we're all equal. Same same but different

[super22k]

I found that women in the workplace were only interested in equality in the nice things.When things were not nice or dangerous they kept quiet and reverted to the "we are different" "women should not have to do that"technique.

It could be said women lack the aggressive business creative drive that men are born with naturally. Women can

succeed in business and politics but they go against the grain because it is not natural to them. It is human

nature.All the great painters were men who most of their life lived in poverty but they had the male dynamic

drive which women lack.

[Thakkar]

The funny thing is, the measure of "equality" and "success" for people in general, and in this case women in particular, appears to be pay and career. However are these really the most important yardsticks to measure equality and success? It is a convenient thing (after all we live in a capitalist world), and, far as I know, has been pushed by the feminists and equal rights movements for decades.

But should women be exactly in the same careers as men, to prove they have achieved equality? And is the number of women in boards and as CEOs the global measure of equality between the sexes?

In my world, women and men are different, and the difference between women and men is one of the things that I enjoy most in life, and the women that I share my life with, enjoy too. Yet if one looks at many of the women who have reached the top of global career ladders (such as Christine Lagarde; others that come to mind include Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, to name a few), these women seem to have lost some female traits along the way. They have more "male" characteristics, at least in the way they present themselves, than most women I know. Perhaps that is the aim of this equality thing the article focuses on: erase the differences, and as men earn more money, let all women become more like men - so they can climb career ladders better and earn the same as the guys.

To say it differently, my view is that many of the women who did manage to climb to the top of these career ladders, did so by shedding female characteristics and adapting to a male world, at least to a degree. And the aim of the movements supporting this seems to be to increase this phenomenon. In Europe, they are trying to force boards to have a certain % of women, by law. Because to them, the measure of success is the number of women on boards and as CEOs and similar. Which I think is absurd. The author of the article seems surprised that Siam Cement Group never had a female boss. It's cement, for chrissakes... Women don't climb through the ranks of the builders world to become CEO of a Cement Group. Because most women don't want to work in construction; they have a feminine focus and are simply not interested in that area. Women and men are not the same physically and psychologically and that's a good thing. Why try and erase that difference for the sake of yet another "ism" (or money and career ladders)?

Don't get me wrong - I do support true equality: same pay for same work, same rights for women and men in all parts of society. But being on a board, or becoming a CEO is an achievement (as a result of deploying specific personal traits/characteristics), not a right. And let's face it, most people, including the far majority of men, don't aspire to be a CEO or a board member, with all the dogged determination to get there, and once the position is reached, the extreme stress that often comes with the job. Some women will be interested in such a career path and position, as are a probably somewhat larger number of men. But I don't think the level of interest in those roles is that great, and the people that are interested will be mostly men, as this type of role is not something many women would aspire to - they are smarter than wanting the stress that comes with them, and lack the historical "expectation" to achieve this kind of "life result", that often drives men to get there.

To repeat what I said before: at least in my world, women are different. They have feminine "soft" traits that they may not get paid for, but that may just be because these traits cannot be valued in money in today's world. But they can be valued personally and by society in non-monetary terms. I believe these traits are highly valuable and need to be encouraged, not steamrolled over to be replaced by male or semi-male values in order to achieve a board-room role or a half a million dollars a year salary. Career and money - is that all that counts anymore? Are women really less happy because they are not in a board room? I don't believe so. How about measuring success in life by how happy and fulfilled we are, rather than by career or money: man or woman - we're all equal. Same same but different

You've conflated a few things here and it's difficult to parse, but I'll try.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood feminism. The point, I think, is that women should be able to succeed without having to become more like men. One of the biggest things holding women back in the corporate world are male boardroom attitudes such as yours. Why don't we let individual women decide whether they want career, money, "high-stress" CEO positions (actually, research shows that positions with decision-making powers have lower stress), etc. As Winston Churchill said on a different topic: 'Since it is in the minds of men that wars begin, it is in the minds of men that the defenses for peace must be built.' Similarly, both men and women need to change how they think about women if that half of humanity is to achieve it's full potential. it's not just about money and career. It's about equal opportunity and having all the same options that men have, with no artificial barriers. Some of those barriers are in the thinking that permeate in the minds of men (and some women) like yourself.

There is no indication that women are any less capable than men. They may do things differently, but no less effectively.

T

[Thai at Heart]

The Thai constitution is extremely clear about preventing discrimination, and yet I have NEVER heard of anyone even attempting to bring a case concerning it.

One only has to flick through the available jobs, and there are hugely discriminatory descriptions of the profiles inside the advertisements. Now, some will say that they like this about Thailand, and that men and women are cut out for different roles in life, which I don't think anyone can disagree with 100%. But is there any evidence whatsoever that a woman was prevented from applying for any of these jobs and that she was discriminated against?

I like to believe that I myself put the best person in the best place to carry out their job and some of the most talented people I know are women. Old stereotypes die hard, but the reality is, everyone has different qualities as individuals let alone on broad strokes of gender.

[Plastic Brontosaurus]

You've conflated a few things here and it's difficult to parse, but I'll try.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood feminism. The point, I think, is that women should be able to succeed without having to become more like men. One of the biggest things holding women back in the corporate world are male boardroom attitudes such as yours. Why don't we let individual women decide whether they want career, money, "high-stress" CEO positions (actually, research shows that positions with decision-making powers have lower stress), etc. As Winston Churchill said on a different topic: 'Since it is in the minds of men that wars begin, it is in the minds of men that the defenses for peace must be built.' Similarly, both men and women need to change how they think about women if that half of humanity is to achieve it's full potential. it's not just about money and career. It's about equal opportunity and having all the same options that men have, with no artificial barriers. Some of those barriers are in the thinking that permeate in the minds of men (and some women) like yourself.

There is no indication that women are any less capable than men. They may do things differently, but no less effectively.

T

Well I see you differ in opinion which is fine however I don't see where I have a male boardroom attitude. All I'm saying is that measuring equality by % numbers of women on boards and as CEOs is, in my view, ridiculous. As well as that measuring success and equality in this way is also dubious in my view.

I assume you are referring to "glass ceilings" that exist in some organizations; and that are being pointed to by ambitious women as the apparent cause of them not being able to enter the executive levels in numbers they perceive as sufficient. Undoubtedly these ceilings exist. But they only exist in some organizations, and will be ground down over time (not long ago, women held no executive positions). However by saying that a fixed % of boards should consist of women and making that law (as they are planning in Europe apparently) is extreme and dangerous for business. Next thing you know is they will say the board has to reflect the ethnicities in the country % wise: so many whites, so many blacks, so many Asians... The course of business needs to be the course of business. And in some industries women traditionally have little expertise, because they have not much interest in those industries. So to force boards in these industries to appoint women who don't have enough knowledge of their industry would be insane.

About feminism: I don't think I've tried to understand feminism. I just observed. And what I saw was that women in top careers appear to have more male personality characteristics in some ways than non-career women, on average: in their presentation, personality, demeanor, etc. It's just an observation.

Sorry but I also did not say that women should not decide on whether they wanted CEO positions; however I did say those positions are not acquired by rights, but by achievement. And definitely not by law, as some feminists in Europe are now pushing for. If a women really wants that role, she will achieve it. It may be harder in some industries than for her male counterparts, but that's life. In other industries the playing field is already level. Pioneers always have to fight harder. They should stop whingeing and get on with the job.

And last but not least, I don't think I said anywhere that women are less capable than men. You make a lot of assumptions.

My main points remain:

1. Using pay levels and traditional career ladder levels as measures of success and equality (either for men or women, but in this context, for women) is limiting. Success for me, for example, is much more in happiness and fulfillment. I've never met anyone whose career and income made them believably happier than they were before. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Traditionally, men have used pay and career as measures of success. Now women do the same. I guess what I'm saying is: we're not going anywhere. Now the women just do as the men did before. Great. It's time things evolved. Women could be creative and champion a new approach to measuring success and equality in a better way. Yet they want the same as the men have used in the past 100 years. No evolution. Same old same old, but with a skirt.

2. Forcing females into male business roles by law (the European % law) rather than letting business dynamics take care of this (which indeed may take a few years longer but will get there), is dangerous for business.

[TommoPhysicist]

I wonder what the stats are for women employed as garbage collectors or street sweepers?

Why do we always have to compare at the top ........ let's give the bottom a go for a change.

[metisdead]

It appears this topic has headed off on a wrong tangent with OTT obfuscation to turn the topic into a religion related discussion. A number of posts and replies have been removed.

[ginjag]

Scooter, When things are pushed down peoples throats they tend to vomit, To my mind too many religions are controlling too many people, I agree that all persons should have more freedom, no matter of colour race or sex. Ease up Scooter you may get some nice answers.

[metisdead]

Another off topic post has been removed, this topic is not about an acid attack against a female in Pakistan.

[Thakkar]

You've conflated a few things here and it's difficult to parse, but I'll try.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood feminism. The point, I think, is that women should be able to succeed without having to become more like men. One of the biggest things holding women back in the corporate world are male boardroom attitudes such as yours. Why don't we let individual women decide whether they want career, money, "high-stress" CEO positions (actually, research shows that positions with decision-making powers have lower stress), etc. As Winston Churchill said on a different topic: 'Since it is in the minds of men that wars begin, it is in the minds of men that the defenses for peace must be built.' Similarly, both men and women need to change how they think about women if that half of humanity is to achieve it's full potential. it's not just about money and career. It's about equal opportunity and having all the same options that men have, with no artificial barriers. Some of those barriers are in the thinking that permeate in the minds of men (and some women) like yourself.

There is no indication that women are any less capable than men. They may do things differently, but no less effectively.

T

Well I see you differ in opinion which is fine however I don't see where I have a male boardroom attitude. All I'm saying is that measuring equality by % numbers of women on boards and as CEOs is, in my view, ridiculous. As well as that measuring success and equality in this way is also dubious in my view.

I assume you are referring to "glass ceilings" that exist in some organizations; and that are being pointed to by ambitious women as the apparent cause of them not being able to enter the executive levels in numbers they perceive as sufficient. Undoubtedly these ceilings exist. But they only exist in some organizations, and will be ground down over time (not long ago, women held no executive positions). However by saying that a fixed % of boards should consist of women and making that law (as they are planning in Europe apparently) is extreme and dangerous for business. Next thing you know is they will say the board has to reflect the ethnicities in the country % wise: so many whites, so many blacks, so many Asians... The course of business needs to be the course of business. And in some industries women traditionally have little expertise, because they have not much interest in those industries. So to force boards in these industries to appoint women who don't have enough knowledge of their industry would be insane.

About feminism: I don't think I've tried to understand feminism. I just observed. And what I saw was that women in top careers appear to have more male personality characteristics in some ways than non-career women, on average: in their presentation, personality, demeanor, etc. It's just an observation.

Sorry but I also did not say that women should not decide on whether they wanted CEO positions; however I did say those positions are not acquired by rights, but by achievement. And definitely not by law, as some feminists in Europe are now pushing for. If a women really wants that role, she will achieve it. It may be harder in some industries than for her male counterparts, but that's life. In other industries the playing field is already level. Pioneers always have to fight harder. They should stop whingeing and get on with the job.

And last but not least, I don't think I said anywhere that women are less capable than men. You make a lot of assumptions.

My main points remain:

1. Using pay levels and traditional career ladder levels as measures of success and equality (either for men or women, but in this context, for women) is limiting. Success for me, for example, is much more in happiness and fulfillment. I've never met anyone whose career and income made them believably happier than they were before. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Traditionally, men have used pay and career as measures of success. Now women do the same. I guess what I'm saying is: we're not going anywhere. Now the women just do as the men did before. Great. It's time things evolved. Women could be creative and champion a new approach to measuring success and equality in a better way. Yet they want the same as the men have used in the past 100 years. No evolution. Same old same old, but with a skirt.

2. Forcing females into male business roles by law (the European % law) rather than letting business dynamics take care of this (which indeed may take a few years longer but will get there), is dangerous for business.

I appologize if I've misinterpreted your implied attitudes. It's just that people who say the things you did tend to have the attitude I suggested.

I tend to agree with you when it comes to legislating quotas for women as it's a rough tool, could lead to unintended consequences, and, once established become entrenched. In the case of Blacks in America it was necessary to redress generations of slavery and Jim Crow. Women, while they have suffered unjustly, can hardly be compared to that—at least not in the West. But doing nothing and suggesting women should just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps shouldn't be the way to go. There have been inequities, and the mark of a civilizing society is that efforts be made to redress past inequities. It is simply the right thing to do. What such efforts could be is for another post.

Measuring the the advancement in women's rights and equality by number of women in leadership positions is not at all ridiculous. It's a perfectly legitimate measure when you remember that we're just now coming out of a history where women were explicitly barred from leadership positions simply by virtue of their gender.

You are right that success can (and perhaps should) be measured by yardsticks other than career, power and money. But neither you or I should be imposing our idea of success. The fact is, most people measure it in the conventional way, and they have the right to do so. If their road to that success is barred on the basis of gender, they have a legitimate grievance.

Your observation of the 'maleness' of women in leadership position is noted. Whether they got there because they were male-like or behaved male-like to get there is impossible to say and in any event, any judgement would be a gross generalization. My point was that if maleness was one of the assets they needed, it shouldn't have been.

I agree that women should be judged on achievement. The problem is, they aren't. Men have it easier in a male-dominated upper-echelon. The existence of glass ceilings is well documented. The fact that, in the aggregate, women doing the same work receive less pay than their male counterparts is well documented. These situations need redress.

We don't disagree when it comes to measures of success. But the debate isn't about success. It's about equality and equal opportunity.

T

Edited February 6, 2013 by metisdead
: Font resized to normal.

[bigbamboo]

It's like my ex brother-in-law said. All women have to do to get control is keep their legs closed.

That's Thai women screwed then.

[Thakkar]

Sorry for rehashing an old topic, but I just read something that I thought would be of interest to some here. The full post by this author can be read by following the link at the end:

--

Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

- JFK

MYTH 1: Sexism is perpetrated by a small number of men, typically close to retirement age, who are “against women.” Most academics, especially mathematicians, are open-minded people who are against discrimination.

FACT: Please read this study on gender bias in science hiring:

In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.

See also summaries and discussion here and here, and my own posts hereand here. This is not an isolated study, either. See, for example, this study on gender and blind auditions in music. I’ve seen the same exact thing in my own experience and heard about it from colleagues. Statistical evidence from my own university confirms it.

The bottom line is, we are all biased. We all tend to think of women’s work as somewhat smaller, derivative, inferior. We do so unconsciously and involuntarily. We are not aware of it, nor do we notice it in others. That’s what all these studies are saying.

http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/gender-bias-101-for-mathematicians/

--

T

[spidermike007]

As far as I am concerned, the women of Thailand seem to control nearly everything, except for their mans rational behavior. The men simply do not have the emotional development to control family finances, make serious decisions, or come to level headed conclusions. I find Thai women far more impressive than their counterparts. Thai men could not be less impressive. I could see why the men here are at least attempting to make it look like they are in control. Talk about a loss of face.

Mike Macarelli

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[tombkk]

Sorry for rehashing an old topic, but I just read something that I thought would be of interest to some here. The full post by this author can be read by following the link at the end:

--

Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

- JFK

MYTH 1: Sexism is perpetrated by a small number of men, typically close to retirement age, who are “against women.” Most academics, especially mathematicians, are open-minded people who are against discrimination.

FACT: Please read this study on gender bias in science hiring:

In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.

See also summaries and discussion here and here, and my own posts hereand here. This is not an isolated study, either. See, for example, this study on gender and blind auditions in music. I’ve seen the same exact thing in my own experience and heard about it from colleagues. Statistical evidence from my own university confirms it.

The bottom line is, we are all biased. We all tend to think of women’s work as somewhat smaller, derivative, inferior. We do so unconsciously and involuntarily. We are not aware of it, nor do we notice it in others. That’s what all these studies are saying.

http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/gender-bias-101-for-mathematicians/

--

T

Funny thing that, but not scientific (in the academic sense). If you have a citation for this study, I'd be interested.

Academic language alone ("randomized double-blind study") doesn't make it a fact. Neither is a URL at wordpress.com a reliable source, in the academic sense.

[Thakkar]

Tombkk:

If you actually click the link I provided, you'll see that that Wordpress posting merely talks about the study in layman terms. The Wordpress blogpost also links to the actual peer-reviewed study published in The Proceedings Of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper is a collaboration by academics from multiple disciplines (Psychology, Psychiatry, Biology and management) at Princeton and Yale.

I make no absolute claim to the veracity of the study, the standing of the publication, the qualifications of the authors or even the standing of the universities of Princeton and Yale. I was merely pointing out a study that I thought people reading this topic might be interested in.

T