This is my latest on Slate–in the science section!!! (And later this week I’ve got one coming out in XX, the women’s section! I’m branching out!!!!!).
UPDATE: In case you were wondering about the state of sexism viz. the trolls of American magazines, take a li’l gander at the comments on this piece, half of which say “well, girls can’t do math” (which is hilarious, given that one of the main conclusions C&W came to was that girls CAN do math), and the other half of which claim that men are the oppressed minority in academia. The world is hella fucking sexist, you guyz. Hella fucking sexist. Jeez.
Like many of you, I read the recent NYT op-ed proclaiming “Academic Science Isn’t Sexist” and scratched my stupid female head a lot. Then I went out into the world and asked the opinion of every scientist and social scientist I could find, some of whom agreed with at least a few of the NYT authors’ conclusions, but most of whom were pretty upset about it.
My favorite part of this article is where I call out the NYT for not disclosing that this revolutionary paper was printed in a Journal that Stephen Ceci founded (for the uninitiated, that would be akin to me insisting that Bell Biv Devoe was better than New Edition, and that I could prove it with my brand-new research paper in the Journal of Critical Schuman Studies):
Yet, many other scientists I communicated with over the weekend say the problem is that the conclusion of Ceci and Williams’ study—that “academic science isn’t sexist”—contradicts much of their own presented data. The paper’s weaknesses just might be the result of where it’s published, i.e. the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, for which Ceci serves as founding co-editor—meaning he has printed his work in his own journal. Why the Paper of Record did not disclose this relationship is, frankly, baffling to me.
I want to thank the many, many people I interviewed for this piece whose quotes didn’t make it in — it was just for space, and you are all wonderful, and I could not have written this article without you, as I quite openly know jack squat about science. But I do know that there is still a Bobby, Ronnie, Ricky, and Mike (and Johnny) for every Sasha in most of the sciences, and — in the words of Ricky, Ronnie and Mike — the situation is serious.
(And yes, I am annoyed I was not able to work “never trust a big butt and a smile” into this promo, especially given the current size of my butt, which continues to keep pace with my belly.)