Cern scientist Alessandro Strumia suspended after comments - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45709205 Prof Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, made the comments during a presentation organised by the group. He said, in comments first reported by the BBC's Pallab Ghosh, that physics was "becoming sexist against men". Cern said on Monday it was suspending Prof Strumia pending an investigation. Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics. He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside". He produced a series of graphs which, he claimed, showed that women were hired over men whose research was cited more by other scientists in their publications, which is an indication of higher quality. He also presented data that he claimed showed that male and female researchers were equally cited at the start of their careers but men scored progressively better as their careers progressed.

Maybe because of people like you, you daft cunt. I don't think there's much wrong with saying that, yes, men did contribute more to physics in the early days than women by quite a margin, but he went so far with this that I don't see that CERN had any choice.

I feel like the question of whether his numbers were correct or not are relevant.

Considering the amount of times the word 'claims' appears in the article you're probably the only one. This article isn't about facts or the production of facts.

One of my problems with his statements are that, if racism against men in physics is so bad, why are they still published so much more than women?

It would be a question of how much more high quality papers are being produced by men. If they just make 20 times more papers, then it would be entirely unsurprising that they're cited more.

This part is also important in that context And a major study published in 2012 in the US scientific journal PNAS showed that science faculty members rated identical job applications more highly when presented to them with a male name rather than a female name.

I would love to read the study in question. It may very well be that science faculty are more comfortable around men, and therefore lean towards men when all else is equal.

It's linked in the quote dude

I think you're missing the fact that a lot of prejudice and, in this case, sexism, affects society at large, not just the people who stand to gain most from it.

Thanks, I'll read through it.

Like a major issue with most scientific or technological fields is that women tend to not even consider them as a viable career option because they underestimate themselves. Part of the reason why outreach efforts are so important is because there are a lot of people who would do good in those fields on an objective level but who never really consider the option because it is inherently perceived as a male-centric line of work.

There are some really interesting things in this study: 1) The gender and age of the faculty member had no effect on how they rated the male/female student. 2) Female faculty members were no more likely to offer mentoring for female students than male faculty. It's odd to me that two things that ought to correlate with bias do not in this study (Younger people and women ought to show less bias against women). With all that said, it seems to be a good study that clearly shows a level of bias.

The same way immigrants are stealing our jobs while also being lazy and living off benefits, a persecution complex is not reality based.

I think he was doing one of 2 things, either he was trying to use the data to cite that men are better than woman in the long term which would pretty much make him an idiot or he was trying to balance out his argument by claiming "Yeah there is sexism towards women in the field and just hiring them more often isn't going to make the solve the problem" But honestly even both of these options don't really feel like something he was going for.

The whole "enforcing bias" thing is a massive false equivalence and it should be dropped from your narrative if that's an argument you'll want to insist on having. At its core, yes, the concept of enforcing certain rules in terms of equality or parity or representation are essentially just a means to legally push for a bias opposing to the one you mean to erase. In reality however, one of them is significantly less shitty than the other and building hypotheses about potential abuse for laws that either don't exist yet or haven't existed for long enough to reliably show whether they have a negative impact is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.

Not really because physics is still massively male-dominated.

No you see men are biologically predisposed to having a wider spread of IQ, and since physics graduates need to have a high IQ, it makes sense that the field is dominated by men. (Strumia actually argues this in his slides)

Ah, well there you go. That always seems to be the rightist response. “Well obviously things are supposed to be unbalanced men are just better and let’s not examine the causes of these gender disparities at all”

Seriously the slides read like a parody: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/878/c32ac231-c769-436c-888d-e6db383d0cd3/Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 17.44.35.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/878/d0d780eb-5117-4bd3-8304-e57bcf0002cd/Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 17.45.17.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/878/aa97c26a-e6d3-4942-873a-fba6bcc5dd85/Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 17.45.28.png