In article <22C5D386343 at LCS.ISU.EDU> PORTADAM at LCS.ISU.EDU ("GR PORTH ADAM
BOULET") writes:
>>What I mean is: isn't it more productive to "not notice the sex ratio" or
>> any ratio for that matter?
>>>> I believe that paper selection, job selection should be based on merits
>> regardless of background, name, gender, ethnic, or cultural background.
>> To clarify what I'm suggesting further, selection processes should be a
>> blind process in which quality and contribution are emphasized over an
>> individuals "prominence." If only 3 people of one particular background
>> present (i.e. gender-male or female) out of 30 presentations than so be
it-as long as quality papers are chosen.
>>Adam Porth
>Idaho State University
>Campus Box 8007
>Pocatello, ID 83209
>(208)236-4061
The problem, Adam, is that when these lists of speakers are drawn up, somehow
<women> do not come up first on the list. The only thing I figure is that the
organizers, especially if they're male, somehow "overlook" women scientists who
have published equally good work in their field. A prime example is a
neuroscience research institute at my university who managed to schedule weekly
seminar speakers for two years in a row without inviting a single woman to
speak. In response to this, I drew up a long (>30) list of women
neuroscientists who all had tenure and had published articles in high profile
journals within the past 2 years. The number of women invited to speak has
gone up (any increase over 0 is significant here). How do you get around this
"forgetfulness" on the part of organizers? Also, my impression is that a woman
scientist must still be multiple times better in order to be considered on the
same footing as many of their male counterparts...
Rae Nishi
CBA
OHSU
Portland OR
