Women Bossy, Men Aggressive?

Claire Cain Miller writes:  Male professors are brilliant, awesome and knowledgeable. Women are bossy and annoying, and beautiful or ugly.

ANortheastern University history professor built the chart using data from 14 million student reviews on Rate my Professor site. It allows you to search for any word to see how often it appeared in reviews and how it broke down by gender and department.

The chart makes vivid unconscious biases. The implications go well beyond professors and college students, to anyone who gives or receives feedback or performance reviews.

It suggests that people tend to think more highly of men than women in professional settings, praise men for the same things they criticize women for, and are more likely to focus on a woman’s appearance or personality and on a man’s skills and intelligence.

“When we use these reviews and evaluations to assess people, we need to keep in mind that the way people write them is really culturally conditioned,” the author said.

Photo

 

We’ve heard about these stereotypes before. Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook executive who wrote “Lean In,” said that women are called bossy when they show the same behaviors as men do, but men are called assertive.

A 248 tech company employee performance reviews found that women are much more likely to receive critical feedback than men, and women who are leaders are more likely to be described as abrasive, aggressive and emotional.

Students can be biased against female professors. In one, teachers graded and returned papers to students at the exact same time, but when asked to rate their promptness, students gave female professors lower scores than men. Biases cut both ways — teachers have also been found to believe girls are not as good in math and science, even when they perform similarly to boys.

Mr. Schmidt, who made the chart, said he was struck by “this spectrum from smart to brilliant to genius, where each one of those is more strongly gendered male than the previous one was.” He was also surprised that relatively few people commented on female professors’ clothing or looks, which he had expected to be the case.

Men are more likely to be described as a star, knowledgeable, awesome or the best professor. Women are more likely to be described as bossy, disorganized, helpful, annoying or as playing favorites. Nice or rude are also more often used to describe women than men.

Men and women seemed equally likely to be thought of as tough or easy, lazy, distracted or inspiring.

Interestingly, women were more likely to be described in reviews as role models. Mr. Schmidt notes that the reviews are anonymous, so he doesn’t know the gender of reviewers. It could be that more female students describe female professors as role models than men do when describing men or women.

Female Professors

Germans: The Best US Immigrants?

If you divide Hispanic immigrants to the US into their various countries of origins, the largest group of immigrants in America are Germans. Msny of these families first came to America after the revolutions of 1848.

Today politiciians John Boehner and Rand Paul are both of German heritgage.  Companies founded by Germans include Pfizer, Boeing, Steinway, Levi Strauss and Heinz.

American culture is flavored by Christmas trees, Easter bunnies, pretzels, hot dogs, bratwurst and sauerkraut.

It is said that the Italians stormed city hsl and the Germans stormed beer halls.

20,00o Germans were interned as enemy aliens in the Second World War.

Now Germans are quietly successful in this country.  Five years ago a small German-American Heritage Museum opened in Washington.

He plays a Steinway, just like you.

He plays a Steinway, just like you.

Women Wearing Their Voices

More than any other form of mass communication, the internet has drastically changed how we transmit information, ideas and opinions to one another. From the exile of leaders during the height of Arab Spring, to the organized marches against police brutality in major cities across the U.S, the role of social media has had profound impacts in societies around the globe.While the internet has revolutionized social movements in unprecedented ways, the negative impacts of social media are real, where a single tweet can leave damaging and lasting effects. Hiding behind a mask of anonymity, cyber bullies can be found lurking in forums, chat rooms, and popular social networking sites waiting to strike out their next victim.Emerging from the silence are those lending their voices to give power back to the unheard.

Wear Your Voice Magazine recognizes 30 of the most socially influential women on social media who are unapologetically reclaiming their space on the internet one tweet at a time. Learn more about the women in the infograph below, and follow them to be inspired and stay socially informed.  The Women:

Women Wearing Voices

 

Women’s Rights Conference For Men Only

Saudi Arabia’s prestigious Univeristy of Qassim played host to one of the biggest women’s rights conferences in the Arab world in 2012. Ironically, the institution managed to hold the event without the advice or attendance of a single woman.

Themed around the topic of “Women in Society” the conference, originally intended to be held annually at the University, is supposed to set a benchmark for tolerance and progress in the region. Delegates and speakers from more than fifteen countries showed up.

As is to be expected from Saudi Arabia, a country firmly under the grip of its own twisted interpretation of Sharia Law, zero women attended the event. At least not in the same building as the men. Perhaps more hypocritically, a woman is yet to lecture to men at a University of Qassim summit.

The picture below was pubished by Okaz, an Arabia newspaper, but it has just recently surfaced in the European press.

Saudi Arabia is still ranked 127th out of 136 countries for gender parity.

All Men at Women's Rights Conference in Saudi Arabia

 

 

Tweet about Sexism!

Publically tweeting about sexism could improve a woman’s wellbeing as it has the potential to let them to express themselves in ways that feel like they can make a difference.

This is one of the findings of a study by Dr Mindi Foster, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada that is published in the British Journal of Social Psychology. The study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Dr Foster explained: “We know women can be badly affected by experiences of sexism and that responding publically can be stressful and risky. This study examined whether using Twitter to respond to sexism could be done in a public way without any negative effects to their wellbeing.”

A total of 93 female undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions regarding tweeting over a three day period. All participants received information over the three days regarding topical issues around sexism in politics, the media and in universities for them to tweet about. One group was required to tweet publically, another privately and the third group did not tweet at all. They received no instructions regarding the number or the content of tweets they should undertake.

All participants completed mood questionnaires and wellbeing measures after they tweeted. Tweets were also analysed for linguistic and emotional content. Emotions identified were: anger, discontent, sarcastic, shocked, surprise and sadness. The most common combination was surprise and discontent.

“Never knew there was this much sexism in politics! It’s so disturbing! Shocked disgusted.”

Analysis showed that the group of women who tweeted publically displayed feelings of increased wellbeing by the third day. Neither of the other two groups showed any changes in wellbeing.

Dr Foster said: “We know that popular online campaigns such as EverydaySexism have empowered women to speak out and share their experiences. However, this study demonstrates how tweeting publically has the potential to improve women’s’ wellbeing.

“More research is required to understand whether this form of collective action has any further health benefits.”

Tweet!

Merkel, Hollande to Russia and Back?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, France’s Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met for more than four hours in Moscow.

Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel had brought with them a peace proposal details on which have not been released.

Russia is accused of arming pro-Russian separatists – a claim it denies.

The Kremlin also rejects claims by Ukraine and the West that its regular troops are fighting alongside the rebels in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Clashes have left nearly 5,400 people dead since April, the UN says.

A September ceasefire, signed in Minsk in Belarus, has failed to stop the violence. Since then the rebels have seized more ground, raising alarm in Kiev and among Ukraine’s backers.

Comments from officials from all three countries had clearly been co-ordinated. In Moscow, Paris and Berlin they all described the talks as substantive and constructive. They all noted that the three leaders, plus the president of Ukraine, would confer again by phone on Sunday.

And they all said work would continue on a possible blueprint for a deal, based on the French and German initiative, with added proposals from President Poroshenko and President Putin.

The fact that few details have been made public is probably positive. It suggests this is an attempt to negotiate seriously, without rhetoric and out of the public eye. But it also means we do not really know what is on the table, how far apart the various parties are and how fragile this latest mission to bring peace to Ukraine might be.

Merkel and Putin

Private Investors for Bank Risk?

Sheila Bair writes: As Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 2006 to 2011, I have front line experience with the problems and havoc that can ensue when large, interconnected financial institutions take excessive risks.  I am committed to protecting American taxpayers from any future bailout of these so-called “too big to fail” institutions.  The best way to do that is to ensure these institutions have adequate private investment to absorb the losses when they fail. That allows markets to work as they should – with private investors accepting the risks and taking the losses, rather than the “heads I win, tails the public loses” practices we saw during the financial crisis where some large banks and other “systemic” institutions were allowed to reap the profits of their risk taking, but turn to taxpayers for help when those risks turned sour.

Big financial institutions profit by relying primarily on borrowed money – instead of shareholder equity – to fund their loans and investments. Because the market views them as implicitly backed by the government, it is cheaper for them to fund themselves with debt instead of equity. Through high levels of leverage, executives are able to increase their returns on equity – and their bonuses which are frequently tied to shareholder returns. Prior to the financial crisis, some of our biggest Wall Street banks were borrowing an incredible $30 to $40 for every dollar of hard cash they had from shareholders.

Big financial organizations have strong financial incentives to increase leverage. This is why it is essential for global and U.S. regulators to take a firm line on the amount of borrowing they are allowed to do.  U.S. banking regulators have already moved to limit big bank borrowing to less than $20 for each dollar of shareholder capital, and just last month proposed further borrowing limits for the largest U.S. banks that exceed the minimums set by international regulators. But behind the scenes, they’re facing intense resistance from many Wall Street banks, who are lobbying them to roll back and weaken their rules.

In the long run, better capitalized banks are in the interests of shareholders, creditors, and the public at large.  Though tougher capital rules may impact returns on equity in the short-term, in the long-term, thick cushions of capital protect investors against unforeseen risks and position the bank to continue lending during downturns. Numerous studies have shown that well capitalized banks do a better job of lending through cycles. This helps guarantee sustainable profits for shareholders, and reduces the risk of default for creditors. Most importantly, well-capitalized banks are in a stronger position to lend during times of economic distress when the economy needs them the most.

roi-bankrisk

Enigma: Women in Science Not Represented in Popular Art

The Bechdel Tests requires a movie to have three basic elements to pass. A film must include: 1) two prominent female characters 2) who have a conversation 3) that is not about a man.

Why do relatively few women  occupy high-profile science or technology positions?  The problem may not be so much a lack of qualified women, but a question of representation instead.

Joan Clarke, the code-breaker depicted in the recent film The Imitation Game, was just one of numerous female mathematicians who worked at the U.K.’s World War II lab known as Bletchley Park. Women’s contributions to the development of the Mac were been scrubbed from the movie Jobs, and from the space mission in Apollo.

The upshot is that a perceived dearth of women in STEM professions can be partly addressed by ensuring the proper depiction of those who are already working in them.

Code Breaker Knightley in the Imitation Game

Impact of Joblessness

Winner by MAggie Bofill in New York:  Winners is billed as a comedy and it is indeed funny, because its core truths are so real and so seldom put on stage.

The animal characters rival A.J.Gurney’s Sylvia in their entrancement. What dog owner has not had their underpants stolen for a good sniff? Curran Connor (dog) tumbles, attacks the garbage pail (which is a driving character in its own way) and snuggles with the kids of the house as they squeeze into a single bed to ward off danger.

Stephanie Hau as the family cat Marie Antoinette is a peril to flies. More accurately one fly which is stuck in a window between the pane and the screen. Driven crazy by the teasing buzz, Marie Antoinette is finally victorious. The show will show you how.

Hau must have studied the movement’s of cats endlessly, because she can create a pounce, stalk and hump back with ease. Pamela Berlin has directed her and all the members of the cast into a stunning group performance.

The cat is a winner, but so is every member of the family.   Brian, brilliantly played by Grant Shaud, finds himself again in the stock room of the Gap. He can leave the house to work, and finally defend his son’s sense of the world. This could well get him fired, but it is more important to do the right thing: not a message we hear so often today.

David Gelles gives a nice boy who is after all a teen, new dimensions, as his own stalking turns into the rescue of a girl who is being sexually abused. As his sister Gabby, Arielle Goldman is an enhanced Harriet the Spy. Like today’s Facebook crowd, she photographs all the evidence: a surreptitious text message, the non-stick pan, offending hand cleaner and so on.

Gabby is writing a play within a play for a Christmas pageant. She chooses Herod’s Murder of the Innocents as her theme. In the play’s final twists, the innocents are saved.

The play is constructed as a series of vignettes. Frequent set changes which required much physical action seemed mistaken at first.  But on reflection, in a play which is perfectly produced, the uncomfortable feeling the ‘busyness’ produces may be exactly what the playwright intended.   The set moves more than the actors intentionally.  The discomfort of “stuff” which fills in for substance is emotionally conveyed by furniture in motion.

Since the  point of the play is that material props set the outline of our moral values– the meaningless repositioning of  stuff– like Gabby’s bag full of swiped ‘evidence’,  is discomforting because it does exist outside of the self.

Elizabeth, the Feminist Queen

Great Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II is known to have a wicked sense of humor, and some mean driving skills. One day back in 1998, she deployed both spectacularly to punk Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah bin Abdullah Abdulaziz.   Back then, Abdullah was a Saudi crown prince visiting Balmoral, the vast royal estate in Scotland. The Queen had offered him a tour of the grounds—here’s what happened next,

The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not—yet—allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.

Royal custom discourages repeating what the Queen says in private, Cowper-Coles explained, but the anecdote was corroborated by Abdullah, and became, in the diplomat’s words, “too funny not to repeat.”

Women still can’t drive in Saudi Arabia.

Women Don't Drive in Saudi Arabia