Jobs and Gender

There has lately been a bit of a scandal in (a very narrow segment of) the science community regarding a story published in Nature's Futures section called "Womanspace" by Ed Rybicki. Check it out for yourself, and then see which of the comments match your own opinions on the piece. There have been many blogs about it, including one by Ed in response to the outrage, that I am still reading and absorbing, and if I was on twitter I would probably start using the #womanspace tag, but a full blog post on this will have to wait.

What's more pressing currently is job season. In astronomy this is the time of year for postdocs, fellowships, and faculty positions to appear on the job register and rumor mill. I've been writing proposals, research summaries, research statements (which is incredibly vague and annoying), and finishing up papers. This morning I was sent a notice for new postdoc positions in my field. It turns out they're looking for people with different expertise than I possess, but sometimes it's nice not to have to apply for another job. And then I read the end of the advert and find myself back in #womanspace:

"Applications from disabled persons are encouraged and will be favoured when equally qualified. [The University] is committed to increase the percentage of female employees in sectors where they are underrepresented. We want to especially encourage female applicants to apply for these positions."

Now, as a female, I don't feel especially encouraged after reading these words. The intent is in the right place, but this type of disclaimer, I feel, only serves to promote the notion that women/minorities/disabled and other underrepresented groups only get accepted (to college, grad school, jobs) because of their demographic and not because they are qualified. The common conception that "all other things being equal" we will hire a woman or minority - held by those who believe they want to help - actually does more to hurt by reinforcing the Other-ness of these groups and down-playing their abilities, which is what all agree should matter in these situations. Consciously, people who think this way are saying "Your Other-ness is going to be a good thing, not a negative thing." But why should it matter at all? Does this mean that unconsciously, these people think the Other-ness is more important than actual qualifications? I don't want the fact that I'm female to be the deciding factor; I want to feel that I'm actually qualified for a job that I get. This type of thinking also reinforces the Imposter Syndrome in these "Other" groups: if my Other-ness is what got me here, maybe I don't really deserve to be here, I'm just filling a quota, etc.

The other side is how majority groups perceive this type of disclaimer. Those who aren't necessarily advocates for promoting equality among the majority and underrepresented groups see an unfair advantage being given to the Others at the expense of themselves. "These Others are not qualified and they are stealing our jobs! They are explicitly being favored! Not fair!!" Regardless of how fair the selection actually is (and I submit that standard practices give unfair advantages to majority groups because of unconscious biases and stereotypes, and that though this can be eliminated to some extent, the process will never be completely "fair"), the perception of unfairness is in fact quite harmful to all involved and especially to underrepresented groups, who always have to prove themselves with a higher standard just because of this assumption (held by few, not all, but enough to have an effect) that they start out less qualified because their Other-ness has helped them succeed.

There is in fact a growing amount of research into how unconscious biases creep into hiring decisions, including the writing of reference letters, that cause people of different groups (gender, race, etc.) to be judged with different standards. (Test your own unconscious biases here, you might surprise yourself!) After seeing a great talk on this topic by Dr. Abby Stewart, the PandA Diversity group has invited her to talk at JHU. Outright discrimination is much less of an issue these days so some are inclined to think the problem has been solved. Women just don't want to do science, right? As incredibly wrong as this is, and as unsupported by data from many studies that I don't feel like looking up and citing right now, some still do think this is the answer. Some may only think so unconsciously, having never bothered to consciously question their assumptions.

I could go on, but I'm getting into #womanspace issues again that will take more time and effort for me to sort out into a coherent post. Let's continue on with my day, during which I am reminded that the AAS job register has been updated (being the first of the month) and I should check it out. That's when I read this lovely job listing:

The Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille (CPPM) invites applications for a postdoctoral position in cosmology. The successful candidate will work with Dr. Stephanie X on original cosmological probes using large-scale structure surveys. The position is suitable for a wide range of expertises from theory and data modelling to statistical analysis of large-scale structures of the universe and of N-body simulations.

The successful candidate is expected to interact strongly with researchers of the Center for Theoretical Physics (CPT) and the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM). He will in particular work directly with Pr. ABC at CPT, who has led the development of new observables to probe the cosmological model. He will have privileged access to data from the BOSS and VIPERS redshift surveys. He is also encouraged to contribute to the science cases of next-generation wide-field surveys such as LSST, BigBoss and EUCLID in the conception of which our laboratories are strongly involved.

Perhaps it's because I've had #womanspace on the brain, but my immediate reaction was to get very angry. "Guess what job I'm not applying for," I tell my roommates. Oh, but the job is in France? It's probably just a translation issue, ain't no thang. (Full disclosure: no one ever actually said "ain't no thang," but they could have.) Other reactions are along the lines of "Oh, those French!" Somehow that failed to be satisfying, though my initial anger had cooled.

Then I noticed that the contact for the job was one Dr. Stephanie X. A woman! "You see!" says my roommate. "Ain't no thang!" (Ok ok, but he could have said that.) So maybe it is only a language issue and not a culture thing (those French with their insensitivity to gender, or something?), but the fact remains that it's not ok and I'm still pissed off. Whether or not I decide to apply (depending on factors other than choice of gender pronoun in the advert), I am seriously considering emailing Dr. X about it. On second thought, probably only if I don't decide to apply. But anyway, every other job listing has managed not to assume that the successful candidates will be male, and I feel like that is something to be encouraged. Whatever the reason how such language made it into the AAS job listing, it is completely unacceptable. Unacceptable!

I guess I'm less pissed off now. The lack of outrage from friends makes it hard to justify continued outrage in what's obviously an unintentional mistake that is completely unacceptable. I won't try to base my decision on whether to apply on this issue, but it will probably be a factor whether I want it to or not at this point. I wonder how many other female graduate students will read this and react with righteous indignation? I wonder if this job will get fewer female applicants compared to others? Of course, what would have been more awesome is if the advert ended with "females are especially encouraged to apply"...