[77pt77]

This text is the anecdotal version of this [1] paper

> The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring

> Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology.

> Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.

> Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

[semi-extrinsic]

> The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring

If anyone seriously thinks sexist hiring is the main reason, they can't have thought about this for a very long time.

The horrible work-life balance in early phase academia, at the exact point when you are usually trying to start a family, is a much bigger issue. Especially since women in academia are often in relationships with men in academia, the question of "whose career do we down-prioritize" is answered as much by biology as by the wishes of the couple in question.

Another one that is also a much bigger issue than sexist hiring is that many of the "gender affirmative actions" that universities usually have are actually quite damaging to women scientists. E.g. we have one at my local university that says all PhD defense committees must include one woman. Typically what happens is that the easiest way to achieve this is to ask a local female professor to be the committee administrator.

That is just one example of how female scientists get handed a lot more non-research tasks, in the name of "gender equality", than their male counterparts. Other examples include project management and outreach activities, where departments are typically falling head-over-heels with an implicit but unintended "Look, we actually have a woman working here! Doing actual real work!" vibe.

[RhysU]

> The horrible work-life balance in early phase academia, at the exact point when you are usually trying to start a family, is a much bigger issue.

It is unpleasant for both genders. As a male this horrible phase was a factor in me not keeping on the academic track, though not the only one.

> Especially since women in academia are often in relationships with men in academia, the question of "whose career do we down-prioritize" is answered as much by biology as by the wishes of the couple in question.

That sounds like a trade-off made by two intelligent adults working in tandem to better their family's place in the world.

I watched my wife perform with a professional ballet company 3 months after giving birth to our older child.

If the couple wants to prioritize the woman's career, certainly post partum lecturing, research, and mentoring can be resumed with full gusto in a similar time frame.

[chasely]

> we have one at my local university that says all PhD defense committees must include one woman.

Wow, that would be really hard to do in some engineering disciplines where I am, and also make the women in those departments take on unnecessary committee obligations compared to their male colleagues.

I recognize discriminatory hiring practices play a large role in M:F ratios in academic departments, but I do get tired of diversity being distilled into what you can tell about someone from a picture rather than their life experiences. My committee is all white guys, but their backgrounds are very different and all but one have had very unlikely paths to academia compared to someone growing up in the US.

[taysic]

Actually if you read the article she gives an example of seeing firsthand that a female was less likely to be accepted for a position with the same qualifications and it opened her eyes. The title is just click-baity