23 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't see how this is real evidence for sexism since it merely shows women scientists with feminine traits in their appearance are less likely to be judged as scientists but that judgment may not be due to sexism but rather merely a subconscious psychological effect that even many none sexist and generally fair minded people may have.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/psychology-science/women-feminine-traits-science/
sexism raises its ugly head. Again.
23 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI agree. People assume the same thing of bodybuilders; that they're probably not intelligent enough to be scientists. I doubt most people would consider that sexism.
I don't see how this is real evidence for sexism since it merely shows women scientists with feminine traits in their appearance are less likely to be judged as scientists but that judgment may not be due to sexism but rather merely a subconscious psychological effect that even many none sexist and generally fair minded people may have.
Scientists have a stereotype of being comprised of physically unimpressive (geeky) people. A "feminine" woman may be considered too attractive to be a scientist, just like someone who looks like Brad Pitt would be regarded the same way.
23 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifyI was wondering about the possibility that what the participants were responding to was an apparent absence of geekiness rather than "masculinity/femininity" (I assume they mean sexual attractiveness by this). However, in that case it points to a difference in perception of what it means to be geeky as a man and as a woman. If a man who is geeky can be perceived as masculine, but a woman who is geeky cannot be perceived as feminine then it implies an imbalance in perceptions of men and women that some may regard as sexist. I think most female scientists are more concerned about equal opportunity, unoppressive working conditions, absence of glass ceilings and so forth.
I agree. People assume the same thing of bodybuilders; that they're probably not intelligent enough to be scientists. I doubt most people would consider that sexism.
Scientists have a stereotype of being comprised of physically unimpressive (geeky) people. A "feminine" woman may be considered too attractive to be a scientist, just like someone who looks like Brad Pitt would be regarded the same way.
23 Jun 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGeeks are not considered masculine. Every media portrayal of a geeky man involves someone weak-looking who is unattractive to most women.
I was wondering about the possibility that what the participants were responding to was an apparent absence of geekiness rather than "masculinity/femininity" (I assume they mean sexual attractiveness by this). However, in that case it points to a difference in perception of what it means to be geeky as a man and as a woman. If a man who is geeky can be ...[text shortened]... bout equal opportunity, unoppressive working conditions, absence of glass ceilings and so forth.
A geeky woman can be considered feminine, but (like you) I'm assuming the article means "feminine" in an attractive sense.
25 Jun 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseYour thread title isn't accurate. I don't think anyone would say that a feminine woman can never be a scientist. But many people would guess that a feminine woman is unlikely to be a scientist. (not the same thing at all) Judgements like these are not necessarily sexist or racist. They become a problem when people use such judgements to negatively affect someone. So if a feminine looking woman is denied entry to a science conference because of her looks, then that would be sexism.
sexism raises its ugly head. Again.
On a side note, my sister is feminine and a scientist.