I want to note that if you read the paper carefully you can see that it does highlight some of the things that are still troublesome. Drop out rate, pay, evaluation and other stuff. As someone who believes this is still an issue for women, I can also accept that there can be a bias against men. Both things can be true and the paper does highlight this.
Of all journalists killed in 2021, 11% were women. In 2020, this was 6%. Source: @unesco. On the International Day to #EndImpunity for Crimes against journalists, let us say out loud: STOP TARGETING WOMEN JOURNALISTS."
It was removed after being widely mocked. But I think it expresses a common view that if 11% of victims are women, that's a horrible inequity ... to women.
Agreed that the original tweet is, at best, poorly thought out. I don’t think anybody is taking this as “not enough people are trying to kill women specifically”.
However, I can see an entirely legitimate argument that this MAY be evidence that women are passed over for the high-risk-high-reward journalistic positions (that would put them into positions where they could be killed) or that as a society we condition women such that they feel it’s “not their place” to seek out high-risk or adventurous roles like this. Although the linked tweet would also suggest those things are improving so that’s, uh, good, maybe? Although I suspect that particular data series is very noisy. In any case, not enough data to reach full conclusions is present.
I want to note that if you read the paper carefully you can see that it does highlight some of the things that are still troublesome. Drop out rate, pay, evaluation and other stuff. As someone who believes this is still an issue for women, I can also accept that there can be a bias against men. Both things can be true and the paper does highlight this.
There was a tweet last week from UN Women:
It was removed after being widely mocked. But I think it expresses a common view that if 11% of victims are women, that's a horrible inequity ... to women.Agreed that the original tweet is, at best, poorly thought out. I don’t think anybody is taking this as “not enough people are trying to kill women specifically”.
However, I can see an entirely legitimate argument that this MAY be evidence that women are passed over for the high-risk-high-reward journalistic positions (that would put them into positions where they could be killed) or that as a society we condition women such that they feel it’s “not their place” to seek out high-risk or adventurous roles like this. Although the linked tweet would also suggest those things are improving so that’s, uh, good, maybe? Although I suspect that particular data series is very noisy. In any case, not enough data to reach full conclusions is present.
Yep, the bias is not the way they want you to think it is:
"National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track"
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/