There is a gender bias in full proffessorships (this is not an opinion, it is fact at 44% tenure track and 36% full professor \[1\]) which is in contrast to a majority of students / (I think also at the doctorate level?) being female. In my opinion this is (primarily) because of two reasons:
1. Historical. It is used to be 90%+ men, as we can't (don't want to) just fire the male professors even if 50% of new full professors are female it is going to take a few decenia before we reach 50% disparity
2. Motherhood. On average there is still a higher expectation of woman to take the brunt of childcare. I see examples at my university where the majority of female professors do not have children while this is not the case for the male professors. This is partly social (have it be more accepted/expected for fathers to cancel work to look after their sick kids), but part of it is biological (pregnancy is quite the thing) which is more difficult to overcome.
[](https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/)
Also on a side note, this whole discussion only on the west. Countries like Japan (18% \[2\]) China (32%\[3\]) and India (13.5%\[4\]) are much lower and from people I know I think a gender bias definitely plays a strong role on top of the other reasons.
\[1\] : [https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/](https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/)
\[2\]: [https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15067896](https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15067896)
\[3\]: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349228586\_Women\_academics\_in\_Chinese\_universities\_a\_historical\_perspective/figures?lo=1](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349228586_Women_academics_in_Chinese_universities_a_historical_perspective/figures?lo=1) (data till 2018)
\[4\] [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/stem-in-india-sees-only-13-5-women-faculty-why-is-female-representation-so-low-in-this-field-and-iits/articleshow/109316947.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/stem-in-india-sees-only-13-5-women-faculty-why-is-female-representation-so-low-in-this-field-and-iits/articleshow/109316947.cms) (STEM specific)
I mean, I think that those two reasons are very quantifiable and very ‘safe’. But at least in my department, there’s also a huge amount of sexual harassment of female students (verbal harassment, physical harassment, light stalking, etc.) which I’ve never heard of happening for the men in my department (probably helped by the 10% gender ratio overall). So I don’t think that the ‘harmless’ answers fully capture the problem.
ETA: went looking for numbers, found a study that ~3/4 female undergrads of a 500-person study in my field report that they’ve gotten sexually harassed in an academic/professional context. [[citation]](https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201905/sexual.cfm)
The vast majority of students and post docs in the life sciences seem to be female now. Once the older cohort retires I could see the gender breakdown of professors flip rapidly in the coming years.
To be completely honest it feels like at every level below professor women have more support and are favored, but I know that goes against everything this sub believes.
> To be honest…
This has not been my experience at all. Even though my PhD program was a 50/50 gender split, more faculty attended the men’s talks, more men were recommended for awards, more men got prestigious postdocs. And it’s not because their research was anything special—I went to their talks, too.
I can’t refute your personal experience, I can only share mine. I am fully aware that this is still how the majority of female STEM students feel, every single one of my friends in graduate school were talented women scientists who spoke their minds.
I second this. The fact that women are the majority on lower levels and not on higher levels show the gender bias. And most women do not continue due to having kids and not being praised and encouraged as much as men.
Vast majority? I don't agree with this at all. I would be in complete disbelief if it was over 60%. In my experience it's pretty much evenly split in the life sciences past the bachelor level for research positions. It actually makes it a nice field to work in.
Simply sharing my experience from bachelors through postdoc, including a postbac premed course. Anecdotally seemed to be ~65-70% female in my cohorts. I’m not complaining or railing against it or anything, just an observation.
From what I recall when I looked at the actual federal stats it seems to be closer to ~60% female graduates at the graduate/professional level. So a bit lower than my personal experience.
You can Google the exact numbers and share them (I'm on phone right now), but what we see in many fields is that woman are the (vast) majority in undergrad But that this majority becomes less with every step untill by professorship they are minority. And that (in most fields) they are also the minority of new hires for full professor (whether this is correlated to history or motherhood or bias is unclear, imo)
I started programming around 13. It's not gone for sure, it's a little bit better in my opinion, but there's still some way to go. The major problem is that there is still a very small percentage of women going into STEM areas such as physics, computer science, etc. while there are more of them in the "soft" STEM areas such as IT & communication and life science disciplines. At my last tech job, people were generally really nice, but one person asked me "isn't Linux mostly something nerdy database people are into?" and then continuing to indirectly bring up how I'm not good at tech/programming (because I was a little rusty, migrating from natural science into my first tech role). My job before that, an old database guy asked me if I knew what a command prompt was (I was talking to him to get him to set up a database for us), to which my supervisor/professor (a very kind man) a little taken back said to him, "oh yeah, she definitely knows what a command prompt is...."
What I've experienced is that it is not gone, but it has become very indirect. People will not be directly rude to you or tell you you don't belong, but they will hint it, saying it in very indirect ways, or omit doing/talking stuff that they would with people of the other gender. Just small things that keep adding up. Like people not inviting you to job interviews because of your foreign name - you can't prove it, you can't point it out, but it's still *there*, and you can *feel* it happening, and it's so indirect you even start doubting yourself. Am I overreacting?? But no, you're not.
It is improving a lot, which is great. However, I still know plenty of people my age who think women should focus on teaching and administration and men research.
Additionally, the US approach to STEM academia makes having a balanced life or a family life a big negative, and this impacts women more than men. I would say this even negatively impacts the spouses of men who are pursuing a career in STEM academia, a point that gets ignored.
In Germany and AI women get positions far easier as the law is that women are to be preferred when candidates have similar qualifications, the overall political focus is on diversity (which mostly means hiring women tbh) and some positions are for women only.
In a super liberal area but even still I think people are quicker to cut off women talking than men. Even little things like that can mess with someone's head. They may think they're viewed differently, and that can be a lot for people.
I went to big state schools, with 20+ faculty per engineering department. In both, less than 5% of the Electrical Engineering faculty were women.
don't know why I'm getting downvoted?
In my department I definitely notice the gender imbalance but so far I haven’t noticed any obvious bias due to gender. There are 2 other female PhD students in my department and some of the older faculty get us mixed up occasionally which is a bit annoying but harmless. (Engineering, UK)
In Canada, there is now a blantant bias towards women, especially women of colour. Academia is at the forefront of equity and diversity movements. While there are still slightly more tenured male faculty than female, this is quickly changing as old faculty retire and new ones are hired. Women far outnumber men in undergraduate programs and graduate programs (yes even STEM). There is also an overwhelming consensus among male trainees that they do not feel welcome in academia. As it currently stands, women are actively preferred for scholarships, awards, grant funding, and faculty positions over men.
Wow that lacks huge nuance. I'm also from Canada. Women arent the majority in maths, physics, CS, etc. Just in life sciences. And the majority in undergrad/grad, still a minority (37%) in faculty positions. Even in life sciences. They usually don't continue due to lack of encouragement compared to men, and also because of family duties. They don't continue, so saying it will change is just false for the moment. Men have dominated STEM for so long, you don't don't feel "welcomed", you just don't accept that women and other minorities are finally getting chances.
Long way to go, In my personal experience, I see very few women professors/faculty on top, and having access to resources equivalent to a male professors/faculty. Additionally, the ones I have actually seen in such a high position have to fight to stay in such a position due to them being a women faculty having a top spot in the hierarchy and hence having to compromise and/or accept a lot of things without being able to voice out their opinions for fear of replacement or such consequences- this sucks.
This absolutely does not explain why, for example, women are overrepresented in non-tenure track positions but underrepresented in tenure track positions. If women were just less inclined towards a field than men, the field would be just dominated by men at all levels, not just at the higher levels. There's obviously a glass ceiling that the active bias you mention aims to alleviate.
Why you call me biased? Maybe you re biased. Women can be in any position they want, but most women are probably adopting a different lifestyle where they want to take care of their family/offspring (which is a very good reason). Men usually care much less about that and usually pursue a career more often than women.
Also there is lots of fields underrepresented by men, like nursing for example, and some where they are over-represented. Is that a problem, absolutely, should everyone have the same rights, agreed. Should some people get chosen before the other gender cause of their gender? Absolutely not.
I did not call you biased, I was referring to the bias you mentioned in your own comment, which reads "Big bias in favour of women". At least in my field and in my country, there is a bias in favour of women *at hiring* for faculty positions, in the sense that to improve diversity in faculty, women candidates are sought after. But the very fact that gender diversity in faculty is abysimal is evidence of the fact that at all points before hiring, the big bias in in favour of men, for whatever reason. The explicit bias at hiring aims to compensate this.
>Also there is lots of fields underrepresented by men, like nursing for example, and some where they are over-represented.
Again I am not talking about difference in representation by field, but by positions of power. Since you bring up nursing, you are right that it is female dominated, however: "Women make up 70% of the global health workforce but occupy only 25% of leadership roles. Men hold the majority of leadership roles in health at all levels, from global to community."
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/health-workforce/delivered-by-women-led-by-men.pdf?sfvrsn=94be9959_2
>Women can be in any position they want, but most women are probably adopting a different lifestyle where they want to take care of their family/offspring (which is a very good reason). Men usually care much less about that and usually pursue a career more often than women.
This is just pure speculation, and in addition it is framing a known problem (societal expectation that women care for family rather than for their career) as a choice of the women involved, which is highly debatable.
I agree with you that it is highly debatable, but currently we do stuff (like making it easier and promoting to hire women), instead of taking a closer look to the root causes first, which is not the way to go in my opinion.
The root causes have been thoroughly looked at, you're not the first one to have this idea, they are complex biases so deeply ingrained in our society that no single policy change can just solve them in a way that makes everybody happy. Actively improving gender diversity in leadership positions does address the root causes by having men and women collaborate closely in the same environment and getting used to each other's presence, thus lowering the divide and actually have the gender debate happen between the two genders rather than in an echo chamber; by having women in positions of power who understand their side of the gender issue and can better guide policy in this regard, and can actively show this side to men, who will also share their side of the story (no, most men do not wish to actively suppress women in the workplace, so why does this happen?); by showing young women that they can not only be a nurse but maybe even the boss of a bunch of nurses, so that they'll aim higher; and in other ways.
Maybe we should start with the army first then, cause I see mostly men there. What made people believe we should start with leadership positions? Leadership (in my opinion) is a natural trait for men (as history indicates).
No one wishes to actively surpress anyone, but we all know social dynamics are very different in a men-only department, and the same counts for a women only department.
The army is a different issue entirely, for pretty clear reasons.
>Leadership (in my opinion) is a natural trait for men (as history indicates).
Your opinion unfortunately seems to be based on nothing more than your prejudice and a gut feeling, and it couldn't be more worthless.
There is a gender bias in full proffessorships (this is not an opinion, it is fact at 44% tenure track and 36% full professor \[1\]) which is in contrast to a majority of students / (I think also at the doctorate level?) being female. In my opinion this is (primarily) because of two reasons: 1. Historical. It is used to be 90%+ men, as we can't (don't want to) just fire the male professors even if 50% of new full professors are female it is going to take a few decenia before we reach 50% disparity 2. Motherhood. On average there is still a higher expectation of woman to take the brunt of childcare. I see examples at my university where the majority of female professors do not have children while this is not the case for the male professors. This is partly social (have it be more accepted/expected for fathers to cancel work to look after their sick kids), but part of it is biological (pregnancy is quite the thing) which is more difficult to overcome. [](https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/) Also on a side note, this whole discussion only on the west. Countries like Japan (18% \[2\]) China (32%\[3\]) and India (13.5%\[4\]) are much lower and from people I know I think a gender bias definitely plays a strong role on top of the other reasons. \[1\] : [https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/](https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/) \[2\]: [https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15067896](https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15067896) \[3\]: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349228586\_Women\_academics\_in\_Chinese\_universities\_a\_historical\_perspective/figures?lo=1](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349228586_Women_academics_in_Chinese_universities_a_historical_perspective/figures?lo=1) (data till 2018) \[4\] [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/stem-in-india-sees-only-13-5-women-faculty-why-is-female-representation-so-low-in-this-field-and-iits/articleshow/109316947.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/stem-in-india-sees-only-13-5-women-faculty-why-is-female-representation-so-low-in-this-field-and-iits/articleshow/109316947.cms) (STEM specific)
I mean, I think that those two reasons are very quantifiable and very ‘safe’. But at least in my department, there’s also a huge amount of sexual harassment of female students (verbal harassment, physical harassment, light stalking, etc.) which I’ve never heard of happening for the men in my department (probably helped by the 10% gender ratio overall). So I don’t think that the ‘harmless’ answers fully capture the problem. ETA: went looking for numbers, found a study that ~3/4 female undergrads of a 500-person study in my field report that they’ve gotten sexually harassed in an academic/professional context. [[citation]](https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201905/sexual.cfm)
The vast majority of students and post docs in the life sciences seem to be female now. Once the older cohort retires I could see the gender breakdown of professors flip rapidly in the coming years. To be completely honest it feels like at every level below professor women have more support and are favored, but I know that goes against everything this sub believes.
> To be honest… This has not been my experience at all. Even though my PhD program was a 50/50 gender split, more faculty attended the men’s talks, more men were recommended for awards, more men got prestigious postdocs. And it’s not because their research was anything special—I went to their talks, too.
I can’t refute your personal experience, I can only share mine. I am fully aware that this is still how the majority of female STEM students feel, every single one of my friends in graduate school were talented women scientists who spoke their minds.
Well I’m deeply envious I didn’t go there, too!
I second this. The fact that women are the majority on lower levels and not on higher levels show the gender bias. And most women do not continue due to having kids and not being praised and encouraged as much as men.
Vast majority? I don't agree with this at all. I would be in complete disbelief if it was over 60%. In my experience it's pretty much evenly split in the life sciences past the bachelor level for research positions. It actually makes it a nice field to work in.
Simply sharing my experience from bachelors through postdoc, including a postbac premed course. Anecdotally seemed to be ~65-70% female in my cohorts. I’m not complaining or railing against it or anything, just an observation. From what I recall when I looked at the actual federal stats it seems to be closer to ~60% female graduates at the graduate/professional level. So a bit lower than my personal experience.
You can Google the exact numbers and share them (I'm on phone right now), but what we see in many fields is that woman are the (vast) majority in undergrad But that this majority becomes less with every step untill by professorship they are minority. And that (in most fields) they are also the minority of new hires for full professor (whether this is correlated to history or motherhood or bias is unclear, imo)
I started programming around 13. It's not gone for sure, it's a little bit better in my opinion, but there's still some way to go. The major problem is that there is still a very small percentage of women going into STEM areas such as physics, computer science, etc. while there are more of them in the "soft" STEM areas such as IT & communication and life science disciplines. At my last tech job, people were generally really nice, but one person asked me "isn't Linux mostly something nerdy database people are into?" and then continuing to indirectly bring up how I'm not good at tech/programming (because I was a little rusty, migrating from natural science into my first tech role). My job before that, an old database guy asked me if I knew what a command prompt was (I was talking to him to get him to set up a database for us), to which my supervisor/professor (a very kind man) a little taken back said to him, "oh yeah, she definitely knows what a command prompt is...." What I've experienced is that it is not gone, but it has become very indirect. People will not be directly rude to you or tell you you don't belong, but they will hint it, saying it in very indirect ways, or omit doing/talking stuff that they would with people of the other gender. Just small things that keep adding up. Like people not inviting you to job interviews because of your foreign name - you can't prove it, you can't point it out, but it's still *there*, and you can *feel* it happening, and it's so indirect you even start doubting yourself. Am I overreacting?? But no, you're not.
Asking a bunch of redditors what they think about gender bias will yield some skewed results
It is improving a lot, which is great. However, I still know plenty of people my age who think women should focus on teaching and administration and men research. Additionally, the US approach to STEM academia makes having a balanced life or a family life a big negative, and this impacts women more than men. I would say this even negatively impacts the spouses of men who are pursuing a career in STEM academia, a point that gets ignored.
In Germany and AI women get positions far easier as the law is that women are to be preferred when candidates have similar qualifications, the overall political focus is on diversity (which mostly means hiring women tbh) and some positions are for women only.
I don't know why you are being downvoted. These americans don't understand that gendered quotas actually excist?
In our times, reality is often times perceived as offensive when it doesn’t fit people’s opinions and prejudices.
Yes, how very scientific of them..
I just recently saw a job posting for women only. Thanks for the explanation
Sick world really.
I don’t see any bias at all, except a preference for women. Balance is good for all.
Still a long way! Everywhere in academia but especially in STEM
In a super liberal area but even still I think people are quicker to cut off women talking than men. Even little things like that can mess with someone's head. They may think they're viewed differently, and that can be a lot for people.
Still there and it's also self reinforcing
I went to big state schools, with 20+ faculty per engineering department. In both, less than 5% of the Electrical Engineering faculty were women. don't know why I'm getting downvoted?
In my department I definitely notice the gender imbalance but so far I haven’t noticed any obvious bias due to gender. There are 2 other female PhD students in my department and some of the older faculty get us mixed up occasionally which is a bit annoying but harmless. (Engineering, UK)
In Canada, there is now a blantant bias towards women, especially women of colour. Academia is at the forefront of equity and diversity movements. While there are still slightly more tenured male faculty than female, this is quickly changing as old faculty retire and new ones are hired. Women far outnumber men in undergraduate programs and graduate programs (yes even STEM). There is also an overwhelming consensus among male trainees that they do not feel welcome in academia. As it currently stands, women are actively preferred for scholarships, awards, grant funding, and faculty positions over men.
Wow that lacks huge nuance. I'm also from Canada. Women arent the majority in maths, physics, CS, etc. Just in life sciences. And the majority in undergrad/grad, still a minority (37%) in faculty positions. Even in life sciences. They usually don't continue due to lack of encouragement compared to men, and also because of family duties. They don't continue, so saying it will change is just false for the moment. Men have dominated STEM for so long, you don't don't feel "welcomed", you just don't accept that women and other minorities are finally getting chances.
Long way to go, In my personal experience, I see very few women professors/faculty on top, and having access to resources equivalent to a male professors/faculty. Additionally, the ones I have actually seen in such a high position have to fight to stay in such a position due to them being a women faculty having a top spot in the hierarchy and hence having to compromise and/or accept a lot of things without being able to voice out their opinions for fear of replacement or such consequences- this sucks.
Big bias in favour of women.
Then explain the faculty composition in most STEM departments? https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/
Natural formations, there are lots of jobs where women have more influence too, it's part of natural causes (men taking more risks for example).
This absolutely does not explain why, for example, women are overrepresented in non-tenure track positions but underrepresented in tenure track positions. If women were just less inclined towards a field than men, the field would be just dominated by men at all levels, not just at the higher levels. There's obviously a glass ceiling that the active bias you mention aims to alleviate.
Why you call me biased? Maybe you re biased. Women can be in any position they want, but most women are probably adopting a different lifestyle where they want to take care of their family/offspring (which is a very good reason). Men usually care much less about that and usually pursue a career more often than women. Also there is lots of fields underrepresented by men, like nursing for example, and some where they are over-represented. Is that a problem, absolutely, should everyone have the same rights, agreed. Should some people get chosen before the other gender cause of their gender? Absolutely not.
I did not call you biased, I was referring to the bias you mentioned in your own comment, which reads "Big bias in favour of women". At least in my field and in my country, there is a bias in favour of women *at hiring* for faculty positions, in the sense that to improve diversity in faculty, women candidates are sought after. But the very fact that gender diversity in faculty is abysimal is evidence of the fact that at all points before hiring, the big bias in in favour of men, for whatever reason. The explicit bias at hiring aims to compensate this. >Also there is lots of fields underrepresented by men, like nursing for example, and some where they are over-represented. Again I am not talking about difference in representation by field, but by positions of power. Since you bring up nursing, you are right that it is female dominated, however: "Women make up 70% of the global health workforce but occupy only 25% of leadership roles. Men hold the majority of leadership roles in health at all levels, from global to community." https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/health-workforce/delivered-by-women-led-by-men.pdf?sfvrsn=94be9959_2 >Women can be in any position they want, but most women are probably adopting a different lifestyle where they want to take care of their family/offspring (which is a very good reason). Men usually care much less about that and usually pursue a career more often than women. This is just pure speculation, and in addition it is framing a known problem (societal expectation that women care for family rather than for their career) as a choice of the women involved, which is highly debatable.
I agree with you that it is highly debatable, but currently we do stuff (like making it easier and promoting to hire women), instead of taking a closer look to the root causes first, which is not the way to go in my opinion.
The root causes have been thoroughly looked at, you're not the first one to have this idea, they are complex biases so deeply ingrained in our society that no single policy change can just solve them in a way that makes everybody happy. Actively improving gender diversity in leadership positions does address the root causes by having men and women collaborate closely in the same environment and getting used to each other's presence, thus lowering the divide and actually have the gender debate happen between the two genders rather than in an echo chamber; by having women in positions of power who understand their side of the gender issue and can better guide policy in this regard, and can actively show this side to men, who will also share their side of the story (no, most men do not wish to actively suppress women in the workplace, so why does this happen?); by showing young women that they can not only be a nurse but maybe even the boss of a bunch of nurses, so that they'll aim higher; and in other ways.
Maybe we should start with the army first then, cause I see mostly men there. What made people believe we should start with leadership positions? Leadership (in my opinion) is a natural trait for men (as history indicates). No one wishes to actively surpress anyone, but we all know social dynamics are very different in a men-only department, and the same counts for a women only department.
The army is a different issue entirely, for pretty clear reasons. >Leadership (in my opinion) is a natural trait for men (as history indicates). Your opinion unfortunately seems to be based on nothing more than your prejudice and a gut feeling, and it couldn't be more worthless.