UKC

Is it any wonder this forum is male dominated when we have threads like this: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/equality_and_diversity_agenda-6...

This forum is basically just an arena for middle class, professional, acadamics and the like to wave their tiny willies around.

edit: forget the self-righteous as well!

It's seriously tedious.

I'm betting that any online forum must be more than a touch dull when you're the Great Beast. 

But happily not compulsory 

What is your point? A middle class white man wants to push back politely  against the idea that gender disparities in academia (or in a specific industry) are the result of discrimination. Is there something wrong with this? Should such issues not be discussed for fear of offending somebody?

You make my point with great eloquence.

I had the good fortune of growing up in a country that is arguably light-years ahead of the UK on this issue.

Interestingly, we didn't seem to have reactions like yours.  Ever consider that you are as much the problem, like a black accusing all whites of being racists?

So you think that such issues should not be discussed for fear of offending someone? You're wrong.

Is it not the case that this forum is male dominated because climbing itself is male dominated? And perhaps also that women have got better things to do, you know, like cooking, washing and ironing and that sort of stuff

Maybe it’s only posting on forums that’s male dominated.

What actually is the issue?

Not wrong but it was missing the point IMO.

Many of those working for D&E in the sciences would say that there is little actual discrimination but a lot about the field that makes it more hostile to some groups than to others, and critically that this is absolutely not by intentional design.

University science in the UK is in many ways a hostile environent - a lot of unhappy people and not enough positions at any change in level for more than a small fraction to progress to the next level in what everyone pretends is normal/expected when really it’s always the exception.

One could argue that less women are interested in a particular subject, or one could take the time to find out why more women drop out at each stage of the ladder (eg school > a-level > undergrad > postgrad > junior faculty > senior faculty) to try and identify and remove the negative factors that disproportionality hit women, to the benefit of all.

After a while a pattern starts to emerge over who takes which route.  As far as I am concerned, I have no truck with a scientist posting pages of words in support of a preferred view.  Facts.  Figures.  Evidence.  There is actually no shortage of this, and it knocks the whole basis of the computer sciences argument on its ugly head.

Time and again I’ve seen some academics react to a D&E presentation with hollers of “but I’m not sexist/racist” and refuse to engage.  This from a presentation that very clearly did not allege anyone was being descriminatory, and that showed clear evidence of a statistically significant gender bias.

After a while you start to wonder why some people are routinely pushing back so much in a way that betrays their suposed scientific principles in favour of their beliefs.  

Can you point us to a presentation of such evidence? 

Random pick - http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/vgalpin1/ps/Gal02a.pdf

Female participation varies wildly from country to country.  A brief look shows that many counties do much better than 20%, and that approximate parity is happens in some nations.

You appear to have turned this into a duplicate of the thread that this thread is about...

It's an interesting paper, but it is basically a compilation of stats that says relatively little about causes.  

It's also notable that the countries nearest parity tend to be those where women (and often men) are less free to make choices about their lives and careers.   

The suggestion by Reges was that -- in Western countries where people have an open and wide choice of life-style and career options, and can pursue what interests them and can be confident of the financial security to do that -- that we are unlikely to have parity.    That middle bit is crucial to what he was saying.

Stats showing that more authoritarian countries or much poorer countries, where people's choices are more limited or constrained by circumstance, can be near parity is not really in conflict with his thesis. 

Why there are a disproportionate number of make to female computer scientists. What do you think it is?

There's a really strong narrative people buy into which goes something along the lines of "what so we shouldn't discuss things because it's causing you offence?". It's a popular viewpoint, hence the like/dislike ratio.

I guess the funny thing about your post is no one mentioned being offended, you brought it up. It's evidently a powerful argument, but it comes across much stronger if you wait for someone to be offended first.

I'm not offended by anything in this post or the one linked to, I just think there's quite a lot of tedious knee jerk reactions to something which people are so ignorant about it's mind boggling. I just had a quick scan through but I find very few people want a discussion on posts like that, they just want to bash their ill-informed opinions against each others imaginary arguments and life's too short. Any post on UKC with a even a sniff of liberal, progressive values does tend to make you feel like you're sat in the rugby club smiling and nodding after your grandad's had one too many pints and tries to stumble through an attempt to say "women just don't want to do those kinds of jobs" in the least archaic way he can think of.

What I find particularly fascinating is the how many of the most intransigent blowhards on here who are academics. One might expect academics to be curious, open-minded and objective, but to read the pages and pages of polemic they write on a variety of subjects, the opposite appears to be true.

Academics daren't ever be wrong or admit that they were wrong in any argument ever, regardless of how little their field of expertise overlaps with the points being discussed.

Jeez you sound like Jordan Peterson.

Perhaps you could post that on Mumsnet.

T.

At least two people claimed to be “bored” , so much so that one quit Ukc. Obviously more than bored: angry? Offended? Who knows?

If the objection is simply that people are not experts on the topic of subect of genetics, biology and computer science sobe it but on that basis most discussion anywhere on anything would be the preserve of a closeted few.

Many UKCers are intelligent, well educated and generally quite well informed people well capable of making decent arguments on the information. Swapping positions is a way of exploring a subject.

Your final para simply suggests that you dont think that any arguments you don’t regard as progresdive are worth hearing. Do you?

Both women I think.

Perhaps that's where all the female climbers are instead of posting on here?

What do you coclude from that? And

what is your point about the original thread?

That they found these forums a hostile environment?

A male academic pontificating on female participation in what he characterised as a male dominated occupation, personally I would have kept my mouth shut and let nature take it’s course. It’s not ‘his’ problem.

I found it quite an interesting thread, especially the input from the Athena-Swan assesor and others actively working in the field of encouraging diversity.

If Coel had not started it, i would know less about the subject then I do now.

It does show that there is  scope for the environment to cause large variations.

Nice theory, but just completely made up as far as I can tell.

For a scientist it seems to me you have a knack for falling in the trap of spurious correlation, especially when they suit your political agenda.

It *is* "his" problem!  That's what Athena SWAN accreditation and similar things across lots of other employers are all about! (Did you read the piece by Stuart Reges that was linked to?)

People get told that it is their problem and then asked what they are doing to fix it, with serious penalties if they don't engage adequately with that agenda. 

And the more people say that we shouldn't even discuss things like this the more I think we really need to have an open discussion about it.

Too many people can adopt a "progressive" position, often on ideological grounds rather than evidence, and then, instead of actually arguing their case, they want to shut down any actual discussion by asserting that it's so obviously true that it's improper to even discuss it.

Or do you actually want males in professions where women are under-represented to adopt the attitude that this is not their problem, and that they're under no obligation to think about it, or change their ways, or do anything about it?

Which no-one has denied.  Of course environment can cause large variations.  As stated, a government dictat saying "women are not allowed to do  ...", or alternatively "we'll only fund places for males to the same number of women that you admit"  would of course have large effects on the stats.

Well some have said we'll probably won't do better than 20%. That's what wintertree was referring to. Clearly that is bollocks.

Frankly instead of relying on spurious correlation, I find that personal experience and two decades in this industry gives me a better grasp of what's is going on. A good heuristic is better than unrigorous stats.

Every IT company I go to or been to is dominated by a boys club, who all say they are not sexist, and don't generally have sexist views, but as a group they display a sexist behaviour. Which may be subtle and difficult to articulate - even for the women who are the victims of this toxic environment.

And in fact i realised over the years that I am also responsible for this. I've always referred  "mates" for jobs, professional networking often revolves around activities such as "going for a pint with the lads" or a "round of golf"  etc etc. So unconsciously you just shut women out.

In the face of this, I can't see any other solution but to get leadership to break this mould by artificially incentivising women and getting rid of this toxic inertia.

Do you deliberately twist every position that you argue against?  (Silly me to even ask!)

Again, in the context of the whole article, he was making certain assumptions about how society would be, when concluding that it was "likely" that the stats would stay around that level. 

*Obviously* direct government intervention or similar major changes in society could change it. 

How is that twisting ? You quoted this in your OP !

I note that you systematically fail to reply on the fundamental criticism I made of your argument, which is that it isn't based on evidence or experience, but rather, on unrigorous use of statistics.

Making vague and unsubstantiated claims like that is simply your debating style.

The article by Stuart Reges actually considers a range of evidence, is based on the experience of most of a career, and makes sensible use of statistics.

   If a "hostile environment" is defined simply by it consisting of a majority of people with a different "identity" to oneself, or many with different views, then it is a hostile environment. Is that your definition?

1) In the sense that the "problem" is that he works in an occupation that experiences the same issues it is "his problem" in that it affects his life and career.

2) But regardless, is it your view that only "victims" (not necessarily the best word) of such problems can have a valid view or should be willing to present a view? If so, do you think that this is the best way reach informed and valid conclusions (in a democracy)?

I think UKC would benefit from a separate forum for contentious issues - politics, religion, br**it etc. so that they are easy to avoid.  Not sure what catchy name it would have - pub arguments?

The standard of debate (I say debate, but almost no one changes their mind) on here is generally pretty good and relatively polite, but there are plenty of users who would like an easy way to avoid these threads. And yes, I know they don't have to click on them, but if a 400 reply thread on brexit is always at the top of the list, you still constantly see it.

It remains a clever sounding theory with many of the stunts attached to the way religion treats science (just swap 'god did it that way' for 'its their choice'), ignoring all the research on factors that lead to such differences (choices). A proper scientist would look first if the evidence fits and it clearly doesn't  (on the other thread I linked the wikipedia page and a guardian article of one of the research leaders in the field whom you can track back to tons of research on the subject).

Frankly in scientific terms I am much more worried that astrophysics is moving away from testable theory into metaphysics than any flaw I've seen in gender research as applied to the computing and technology area that I work in.

Athena Swan has made a useful big difference to cultures in quite a few UK Universities after the management stopped being in denial. In the US some aspects of the 'diversity agenda' seem problematic to me but nearly everything I've seen so far in Science in the UK is OK (research informed and well intentioned and often resulting in positive changes).

As for bad behaviour of academics in general I sometimes wish purgatory existed where that minority should stay until they could be respectful about each others subjects, be professional with student cheats (sharing the same level) and repent the lack of honesty in the work they do. We shouldn't tar all academics with that brush as the majority are honest and professional in their work and very careful out of their own area, knowing the complexities of their own. I always thought one of the fundamental tenets of academia is we are probably wrong in some details all the time; and in science, history shows even major theories change from time to time. If you like, we know enough to realise how little we really know and inspire others to reach the same position of awareness whilst being able to function in life solving useful complex problems. Modesty and awe is what I feel about this.

Some of the things that makes UKC a 'hostile environment' is the combative nature of some of the threads and the way that some users feel the need to sneer and/or use totally unnecessary language to argue their case/get their point over, etc.
This is particularly prevalent on the various political threads that seem to be taking over UKC at the moment.  Not naming any names, but I think some users might need to have a look at their own posting style before criticising others...  

So you claim.

It isn't.

Why not critique the evidence in the links rather than spouting pop psychology.

Most of astrophysics is clearly not metaphysics but some of the research edges of the subject are very much in that area according to some philosophers of theoretical physics and historians of theoretical physics. Quite a few of them don't even see the word as pejorative. I guess you don't do philosophy though?

Not just women, it shuts out everyone who hasn't had a middle-class, 'golf club' background. It often seems that the point of 'networking' is to ensure the 'right' type of people get the jobs, not necessarily those best suited to the job.

I'm aware of the criticisms, and I think that those philosophers are wrong on this.

You guess wrong, I'm familiar enough with the issues on this. 

Not my experience at all.  How many academics do you know?

For what it's worth, I think that most women avoid getting involved in threads like this for the same reason they tend to drift off from increasingly tedious male-dominated arguments in the pub.  I imagine it's the high-volume pedantry, but you'd have to ask them.  

Not sure it's much to do with the subject matter, although obviously male-dominated arguments about sexism must be particularly irritating. 

I'm married to one!

When academics start arguing on here, I sense them treating comments on here like a rejection of papers they've written, to which they respond by finding major corrections required in the other man's opinion. I can't remember ever seeing any such thread conclude with 'OK, you've convinced me' or OK I change my mind*. I think they have too much professional pride invested to make such an admission.

* There might be such threads, but after a week or 2 I usually tune out

now of course you are just kicking the player instead of the ball, but I guess we won't get any real answer from you

I disagree that it makes a sensible use of statistics. The 20% claim is the most obviously unrigorous. but there are others.

Ho ho ho! That from you?  <snort>!

The "20% claim", a prediction of what is likely based on his experience and judgement, is not even a "statistic", so your complaint isn't even coherent. 

If you're aware, why don't you say so, rather than say "it isn't". Maybe say  "I dont think it is" or "I disagree with those saying this". Are we to think you think your view trumps every other expert in the subject?

It's good that you know. Most scarily  when I talk about Popper and the philosophic fundamentals of the empirical scientific method most younger academic scientists these days don't appear to have the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

It's a shorthand!  It's taken as read that what I write is my opinion, unless otherwise stated.

I've come to the slightly jaundiced view that philosophers of science are not actually that good at philosophy of science.  (There are a few exceptions, such as James Ladyman.)

But it's not scary because it doesn't actually matter.  Most scientists can operate entirely ok without knowing about Popper or similar philosophical commentary about science.  Has any scientist ever done anything different than what they would have done, owing to Popper? 

Again I have to disagree. When scientists see things, that should be regarded as the best theory meeting current evidence, as truth, something is going horribly wrong. You are normally near the front of the queue critiquing theism in religion (where it's philosophically far more defendable).

Are scientists really getting confused over such things?  Generally they're pretty well aware of the level of confidence that is appropriate to have. 

Anyhow, in the real world, "true" generally means "beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar.  It's not a claim to omniscience. 

I wish I could read a 22nd century history book on the current period in cosmology.  By golly it would be more interesting than contextualising data showing gender parity in computer sciences with the claim its due to repressive governments.

Seocnded.  

How much longer will the field retain its historic favour with state funding in the UK?  

Plenty of other aspects of science are similarly remote from both societal impact and testable theory but don’t have their own (half of a) research council, let alone one with only pre-screened departments eligible for their own block grants without any real competitive responsive mode funding.  

Unfair of you. I have never attacked you personally or judged your character. You did.

Ok, fine, call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that it appears to be an utter bollocks estimation given that there is plenty of historical evidence showing that above 20% if perfectly possible. 

Neither cosmology nor astrophysics is general is "remote from testable theory".  There have been huge improvements in cosmological data over the last 10 and 20 years, it's very much a data-driven subject.

Eh?? What are you on about?  They have highly competitive responsive mode funding.

Mumble mumble free parameters mumble mumble degrees of freedom.  When I talk with physicists from within and without cosmology I hear far away more diversity of opinion on this than any other area of the subject. 

Yes, but how much money flows out through that compared to the block grants?  Long long ago in a line of work far away I even had a responsive mode grant from PPARC.  The scheme under which it was funded awarded less in its existence than a typical year’s worth of block grant funding.  

All to take with a pinch of salt, but this is an interesting article with links to numerous quality references.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2006/08/03/the-mismeasure-...

Block grants (now called "consolidated" grants) *are* responsive-mode grants.   That means the department bids for what it wants to.  That the bids that pass peer review are  then consolidated and awarded "en bloc" is to reduce admin. 

Unlike other councils however, the submissions are in block and therefore subject to more oversight/control by the PI on the block submission, and are not open to the whole field but only select institutions, and open only once every N>2 years for a given “blessed” institution rather than every 3 months across the whole of the academy.

I cant bring myself to call it responsive mode even if I was quite wrong on the definitions, but that’s semantics beside the significant differences between STFC and the other councils.  I would be very interested in any UKRI investigation in to the diversity and equality consequences of the astro and particle block grants from STFC vs the more common approach elsewhere.

A hostile environment is one where opinions that for want of a better word ‘oppress’ you are expressed with relative impunity.

He’s not the only one in a traditionally male dominated occupation, I’m an engineer and female participation in my industry, in the U.K. has been low (we lag behind Europe and India). It’s getting better now due to opportunity, education and an unobtrusive company attitude. I don’t recognise his description of a ‘lads’ culture in the software engineering example he presents. 

The only way I’m affected is that things are getting better all the time.

They will have strong view, but I’m not quite sure who mean by victim now, is it women affected by people saying they’re genetically less inclined to write code or the hand wringing academic worrying about his diversity target?

With an academic having the option of forming a separate "consortium" grant if s/he doesn't like the institution's/PI's strategy.

Which is more or less all of them.  And an institution can ask to apply. 

Which is simply to ration the number of bids, to prevent the success rate plummeting into a single figure percentage. 

That would have the community spending much of its time both writing and reviewing grants every three months for a very low success rate. Which would be hugely inefficient, and would spiral into a lottery-type system where you just flood the system with bids hoping to luck out. 

All of these things are just to reduce the number of grant bids to something sensible, given the available funding.  It doesn't mean it's not a competitive, responsive-mode system.

Anyhow, I really don't see what this has got to do with anything at all, though I am impressed by how far off-topic you've managed to get!  

Does anyone on this thread like a pop band called The Cramps? 

I just posted off-road, but still relevant.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I really do see a different side to a lot of it as well.

I sort of hinted in my last post - I think there are D&E implications to a system that puts extra check points in the hands of individuals within universities in a way no other research council does.  Also I think the clumping of grants through consolidation significantly alters the hiring environment for PDRAs compared to a field with a regular flow of grants asynchronously across the country.  I think this has consequences for hiring practices and D&E.

This seems to be becoming a problem elsewhere, although in some cases also due to inexplicable decreased pot sizes.   I am not convinced that the rationing can’t be done more effectively another way, although I realise it isn’t elsewhere. 

Perhaps I’m just envious of many people getting by with a single Impact Statement.  That’s definitely an efficiency saving.

Are you aware of this ever succeeding?  It’s also noble to assume that the higher powers always have a genuine strategy and not ulterior motives across the whole field.

It is however a very large barrier to an applicant not in one of our few physics/astronomy departments.  People in other departments cross discipline boundaries and change areas facilitated by the more common approach to grants.  Counterpoint is an increasing talk of concentrating what was RCUK money into critical mass departments only.  I see this as like investing in FTAS vs FTSE100 - invest in the later and you miss out on the biggest gains of new entrants rising.  I think my view lost the battle long ago though.

Ah right, desperate attempt to make it relevant by adding:

"... I would be very interested in any UKRI investigation in to the diversity and equality consequences of the astro and particle block grants from STFC vs the more common approach elsewhere."

Please lay off the desperation claim.  It’s unbecoming.  You will of course note that my edit was completed *before* your post accusing me of being highly off topic, do you suggest I was driven to desperation by some supernatural premonition of your scathing criticism?

This is by no means the first time I have considered the D&E implications of block grants, although it is the first time I have mentioned it on UKC.  

EPSRC are now funding D&E work directly.  I am keenly awaiting more developments for STFC.

  You need to explain what you mean by "oppress" and why you think the link "oppresses?. It sounds rather like "opinions that I disagree with".

   Well good for you. But do you or do you not think, that as a man you have a right to comment on the issue?

  By "victim" I refer to the females in this instance. Having clarified that , is it your view that only "victims" (not necessarily the best word) of such problems can have a valid view or should be willing to present a view? If so, do you think that this is the best way reach informed and valid conclusions (in a democracy)?

Incidentally, neither the OP nor the link said that "they’re genetically less inclined to write code"

  The interesting the thing is that the OP's link sounds like a person who has spent their whole career teaching computer science and promoting computer science to women and is voicing his frustration that, despite all his best intentions and efforts, he fears that for reasons that he doesn't understand, he can't take it any further.

  And yet you, who does neither, feel qualified to give your opinion on whether he should have a view.

There was a smiley. I was just impressed by how far off-topic things were getting, though Offwidth started it. 

I know.  I was going to go back and edit my post to lighten the tone, but given the context I decided not to edit it!

With my bad dyslexia I struggle to read what I actually wrote in the mobile editing interface, but stepping back and reading it fresh in the thread helps me actually scan what I put down not what I thought I did - this applies to spelling mistakes, missing words and overall tone.

Yes, everybody has a right to, and nobody prevented you from doing so, BTW.

And so do you.

I wasn’t referring to the link. I was referring to the small undercurrent of laddish comments that forms a background noise on these forums where most of the posters are male. I am probably guilty of it myself and it’s not OK. The equivalent is, for example a project team meeting where there are no women present and one where there are. I feel that diverse teams are happier and more productive. This is a powerful economic incentive too.

Yes

I don’t teach computer science or promote it, I work with developers to produce engineering software. About a quarter are women, it used to be less, it will be more.

Of course he has a right to express any view he might have but his ‘issue’ is a somewhat patronising one.

Ok, I think you’ve made your point.

So nothing to do with the subject of the thread?

Incidentally, "blank" abandoned UKC before any laddish comments appeared on the thread.

   He teaches and promotes computer science and is judged (and possibly partly rewarded) by his efforts to improve diversity on the field (as, it appears from this thread, are many academics), and yet you regard him addressing this issue (or the issue itself?) as patronising.

Can you explain?

I'd say its a bit patronising as he ignored most of the research and just tried stuff (something I often do myself... you never know when interesting results turn up). You do normally get further when you build from existing research and should always contextualise your work in the research. My team saw a slow decline for over a decade when most other physical sciences were slowly improving so I recongnise his curve.

The bigger concern in the UK currently is proper support for STEM especially with Brexit on the way... Ive faced 5 departmental closures/rationalisations in my journey from EEE to where I am now. I think we have reached a point where my students should have lower fees for national economic reasons and/or improved central government support for facility spending (as part of the issue behind closures was our courses were comparatively expensive in cost benefit terms to my institution). Every team I've taught in had industry queuing for our graduates. I think lower cost would shift the gender balance as a side effect (as on average my female students seem a tad more adult in their thinking, planning and finances than my male students).

  That is surely not "patronising"? It just means he was not understanding or addressing the issue very well.

   Now that is patronising

I called my girlfriend "Diversity", she said "Aye?"

I guess it might depend on which way around one looks at things, if you didn't come across reactions like you mention, that could be 'because' the country you grew up in is ahead of the UK? Meaning that the reaction of Ex Poster 666 is less a part of a problem, but a reaction against the problem instead?

There used to be more female posters on here.

It’s easy to see why they might go away when faced with long, eloquent pitches about why they are naturally less likely to work in XYZ fields, in the face of all rational evidence.

You wouldn’t say it about a black person or a disabled person, but it’s not only perceived as intelligent debate to say it about women, but well received by a reasonable fraction of posters.

One thing to be said about the Athena Swan process is that it tends to make dinosaurs drive themselves to promenance without actually asking them to change anything.

Indeed. I think the combative nature of the forums might be relevant too. I've found that one can get drawn into responding in kind at times, which simply continues the ping pong. Sometimes it's actually by the next day that one has thought through a considered response.

Female here - one who used to post in UKC, until I realised that the site was morphing into Orwell's Oceania and I was surrounded by the devotees of Ingsoc all babbling away in Newspeak, with its continually diminishing vocabulary reducing complete thoughts to simple terms of simplistic meaning. Nothing to do with misogyny or gender politics, but everything to do with bellyfeel, blackwhite and duckspeak.

That tone of post rings a bell (I have a feeling who you are). I'd probably agree that it's more conventional/conservative (in a none political sense) in thinking on here, with less 'off the wall' or alternative points of view. I think I'm going to experiment, re thread topic, and see what comes up in the responses.