Study: Women Twice as Likely to be Hired in STEM Tenure-Track Positions

I vaguely remembered seeing it and mucked around with searches until it came up.

And e=mc^2 is a gendered equation.

I hope you're sarcastic.

I don't think under/over-representation is necessarily sexism; typical "correlation does not imply correlation". My point was that the first statement ("no sexism") was in direct contradiction to "Women Twice as Likely to be Hired Over Equally-Qualified Men". Of course, even that is not necessarily sexism; it could simply be that women are/expect to be paid less than equally-qualified/capable men, so it's a no-brainer to hire only women.

In a male dominated field, no.

In a female dominated field, such as nursing or primary education, sexism to many has the opposite meaning. For example, there is lots of sexism regarding "house-husbands". I have a charming gentleman who babysits my daughter, he was very worried about sexism, and, well, for good reason.

You're correct, my statement is unnecessarily argumentative. Thank you.

It might also make sense for a university's administration to prefer women -- for the same position, women currently make, on average, 10-20% less than their male counterparts. That adds up. Surely, you'd consider the wage differential as part of your hiring decision?

Here's one off the top of my head:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

Abstract: Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.