Sexism plagues major chemistry conference: Boycott emerges amid growing outrage

[boston bean]

Bias against women in science reared its ugly head last week when the preeminent conference for theoretical chemistry posted a list of two dozen confirmed speakers without including a single woman.

A group of female scientists promptly called for a boycott, but faced backlash from a prominent chemist who dismissed their efforts as “nonsensical” and “trendy whining about supposed ‘gender inequality.’”

Not everyone was supportive of the proposed boycott. 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. Here is Kress’s original message, in its entirety:

Has anyone bothered to ask the organizers of the “evil” ICQC about their supposed “gender inequality” issues? Has anyone asked about the speaker selection criteria? Has anyone allowed, or asked, the “evil” organizers of the ICQC to provide a response so the members of the community can get BOTH SIDES of the story?

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.

Kress doubled down in a followup email. “Given that everyone has unique DNA, it is scientifically certain that no two people will be identical in terms of capabilities,” he wrote. “ALL SORTS of differences in capabilities exist in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Math, etc. Those who work harder, overcome their capability deficient and make themselves equal to or better than their colleagues. Hard work is the way to address the capability issue and thus achieve equality.“

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/20/sexism_plagues_major_chemistry_conference_boycott_emerges_amid_growing_outrage/

[KitSileya]

1. That sounds so very much like posters here on DU.

Cretins, all of them.

[boston bean]

3. I too, noticed some similarities.

Damned women for bringing it up!

[CTyankee]

2. they are really threatened, aren't they?

these guys historically throw up all kinds of barriers to women's progress, we fight back and eventually WE WIN. And who cares what that idiot or any other sexist has to say?

Give it up, fellas...

[boston bean]

4. yep, that's why it's important to not give up.

We'll get our rights one way or another. Whether they like it or not. Must keep fighting!

[CTyankee]

5. and we have in our midst men who love feminists and Feminism.

I always include them in my blessings.

[boston bean]

6. Absolutely!

[ismnotwasm]

7. Yeah me too

Some of the posters on DU aren't unique in assholery-- they reflect certain aspects of society. But slowly, they're going the way of the steam engine. Too many men don't justify ridiculous sexist bullshit, they understand while the human form is beautiful; women are clearly objectified.

[CTyankee]

8. Yes, the knuckledraggers get left behind and eventually fade to irrelevance...

I read a lot more here than I respond to. Because some of it frankly is not worth my time or effort...and I know which ones are going to fade...I just stand back and see them slowly disappear...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. K&R

[redqueen]

10. Smug, sexist shitheads are resistant to learning anything that threatens their sense of superiority.

The writers of the petition contend that the male-dominated gathering is not an isolated incident.“ICQC/IAQMS is a part of a much larger problem,” explained Krylov, a professor at USC. “Biases against women in science are pervasive; they are well quantified and well documented.” Notably, there are only four female scientists among the 110 living members of IAQMS, which elects new candidates by internal vote.

emphasis mine

[hlthe2b]

11. And, THAT is the point...

It is infuriating that this continues.

[boston bean]

12. and then he argues it's due to DNA. What a LOSER creep the guy is.

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. I assume this has a history

Given that a Boycott is being conducted I presume there is a history of not responding to concerns about bias. Which is a shame cause if the bias is capable of skewing the gender ratio to such significance it's possible there is much more bias being injected. Assuming they are using a blind review of proposals/papers, then perhaps contradictory lines of investigation are being excluded?

I get the feeling that sexism is just the tip of the iceberg here.

[JI7]

14. when they get defensive like that you know something is going on

usually people would listen to the concern and talk to people and try to address the issue.

but this type of reaction full of drama and outrage and exaggerations usually means they are trying to protect their place.