Sexism is alive and well in the hard sciences, despite or because of women's advances.
Recently, women chemists called for a boycott of a major chemistry conference because it was featuring an all-male program. The ensuing backlash demonstrates what women are up against in the profession -- and in the larger world.
ON EDIT: Maybe if women were taken seriously in other spheres of their lives, they wouldn't be so offended when they come to a progressive political website and encounter T & A photos.
https://www.change.org/petitions/scientific-community-stop-gender-discrimination-in-science?recruiter=53418377&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
It happened again --- another major theoretical chemistry conference features an all-male program. One of us began boycotting such conferences 14 years ago and can't believe that 14 years later we are still seeing such overt discrimination. This time it is the 15th International Congress of Quantum Chemistry (ICQC, http://www.icqc2015.org); conducted under the auspices of International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science (http://www.iaqms.org), which will be held in Beijing, China. As of 02/15/2014, the program features 24 invited speakers and 5 chairs and honorary chairs and does not include a single woman.
Are there no women in theoretical chemistry? Hardly. The Women in Theoretical Chemistry web-directory (http://iopenshell.usc.edu/wtc) lists more than 300 female scientists holding tenured and tenure track academic positions or equivalent positions in industry and other research establishments pursuing research in theoretical and computational chemistry, biochemistry, material science, as well as theoretical molecular/atomic physics and biophysics. Many of these women are far more distinguished than many of the men being invited to speak at these conferences.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/20/sexism_plagues_major_chemistry_conference_boycott_emerges_amid_growing_outrage/
James Kress, a member of the Worldwide Who’s Who for Excellence in Science and Engineering, a nonprofit dedicated to cancer treatment research, took issue and aired his grievances on CCL.:
SNIP
Has anyone determined the number of black/ Hispanic/ Asian/ American Indian etc. speakers to ensure there is no “racial inequality”? How about the number of speakers from every country on the planet to ensure these is no ”ethnic inequality”? How about the height of the speakers? Has any ensured there is no “vertical inequality” by making sure that people of all stature are “properly” represented. What about weight? We wouldn’t want to promote “Girth Inequality”, now would we? What about age? Hair color? Shoe size? Marital status? Claimed sexual orientation? Eye color? Nose length? Ability to hear? Ability to see? Ability to walk? Ability to talk? Every other “disability” status?
As one can see, once CCL starts down this path there is no end to the amount of whining and complaining that the list will have to endure. It will render CCL a wasteland of “Political Correctness”. Perhaps CCL should dedicate a part of their platform to related social issues such as these.”
Nonsense.
If people want to discuss “gender inequality” they should start a forum on LinkedIn or Facebook or any of the many Social Media sites; or a WWMWICCL (We Want More Women I Computational Chemistry List) email list to which interested people may subscribe.
If you INSIST on discussing this on CCL, the please place an identifying header on all your emails so that those of us who care about SCIENCE, as opposed to trendy whining about supposed “gender inequality” and other fashionable modes of Political Correctness can at least have a hope of filtering out all of the nonsensical content and peruse the SCIENTIFIC content.
AN ANSWER TO PROF. KRESS BY PROF. CHRIS CRAMER
http://pollux.chem.umn.edu/CompChemGenderEquity_140216.html
You (and others) raised the question of whether the selection criteria of the ICQC 2015 organizers were known, whether anyone had contacted them, etc. Actually, one of the organizers posted on a separate mailing list (devoted to molecular dynamics), that the 26 male speakers had been selected from a slate of 27 (evidently, the one woman had failed to respond). He was shocked that anyone might think that inviting 3.8% female speakers might be regarded as inadequate. He went on to note that upon reviewing the end result, he then solicited suggestions from International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science (IAQMS) members for some remaining speakers, asking in particular for women. Certainly, if I were a woman, I'd be thrilled to know that my chief qualification for a subsequent invitation was not my science, but a desire to achieve gender balance after the "real" speakers were selected. For the record, you can find this post here.
Jim, I've trained roughly 100 undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral co-workers. I admit that it pains me that I know that the women members of that group will face discrimination that will make it much harder for them to achieve their full potential than will be the case for my former male co-workers. I say that not because I subscribe to a belief in "evil" (as you put it), but rather to an acceptance of the extremely well documented phenomenon of implicit bias. We are all creatures of our culture and, worldwide, there is a culture in science that works against women that reflects hundreds of years of history and tradition. There is a lot of scholarship in this area, but the most recent example was published in PNAS in 2012 and showed that, when presented with resumes for lab managers that were in every way identical except for the name of the fictitious individual, scientists (men and women) ranked the man significantly more highly than the woman and offered "him" a starting salary significantly higher than that offered to "her". These weren't "evil" people, they were just people formed by their own backgrounds and experiences. The PNAS study is available here.
But, let me come back to the bottom line, Jim, which I suspect you consider important. What if it's a woman who has the next big breakthrough idea that advances our field dramatically? And, what if she can't get that idea recognized as quickly precisely because implicit bias slows appreciation for her scholarship? You'll suffer, too, as you won't be able to offer your clients a service that you otherwise would have become more rapidly aware of. We all like to believe that cream rises to the top, but, in all honesty, "it's not what you do, it's who you know" goes a long way in science, too. Aurora Clark has already posted eloquently here on the topic of how proactive steps to increase diversity propagate to the next generation, so I won't belabor this point.
Returning to the specifics, I've been around in this field a long time. I think that I can legitimately claim to have earned a certain level of experience to comment. Do I think that the IAQMS is ridiculously dominated by old white guys? (I say this as an old white guy...) Well, yes, I do. Have I attended ICQC meetings and been struck by the cronyism in the field and the repetitive speakers rosters? Um, yes, I have. Happily, I am at a stage in my career and a level of privilege that I can say suicidal things like this and not. really. give a damn. But the call for a boycott by my colleagues Professors Carter, Gagliardi, and Krylov was not motivated by a one-time gaffe -- it followed years and years of frustration, and the ICQC 2015 speakers list was the straw that broke their respective colloquial camels' backs.
= new reply since forum marked as read
