|
No, simply evidence does not pass ESRs filter. It has to be evidence collected by insiders, not outside scientists who don't understand how things function. There are plenty of studies that show that in collective discussions of womens qualifications are questioned more, but not in a gendered way. Questions like: What was the role of the supervisor in the thesis? are not sexist. That they are raised more with respect to women is. I could spend an hour on google collecting studies (e.g. a meta study on interruptions [1] the studies on talking time are methodologically simpler and with very clear significance and large effect size, I am not aware of convincing criticism of the studies on the perception of interruptions, e.g. [2], a study that got some attention recently actually had the result that when it comes to interruptions, men interrupt women at about the same rate as women interrupt women, it's just that women interrupt men less Table 1 in [3], etc... again, the literature shows pervasive biases (some strong, some not) of a complex and varied nature). But honestly, I don't see the point, you just dismissed decades worth of studies out of hand. You called these studies anecdotes, but your gold standard of evidence seems to be individual events. When really we are in a much more subtle phase of the struggle for equality. From your comment I don't think you really care about scientific evidence on this question. Or you haven't bothered educating yourself. Evidence of _real_ sexism is massive, and everywhere. It just doesn't look the way you (and maybe many a SJW, too) maybe imagine it to look. It doesn't show up (usually) in the form of individual events that can be proven to be sexist, but it shows up in social patterns all over the place. [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018802521676
[2] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1995.18.1.59?mag=man-...
[3] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261927X14533197 |