I wouldn't want to work in a workplace which wears its objectification on its sleeve like that. Your argument seems to be that I'm weak because of all the opportunities available to me I would prefer to work someplace else.

Thus, while I think that lern_too_spel is incomplete, in that some men may also stay out of science for these reasons, I strongly object to your name calling. I am not "weak" for my decisions on the sort of work environments I will participate in.

Nor do I think that others, women or men, who make the same decision are weak. Yet, oddly, you want to call me and them names for making what I think are principled decisions. That sounds like a back-handed taunt by you to those who stay out of a given workplace for these reasons.

There's of course no clear cut line. Would a shirt using Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" instead be a problem? Playboy's famous "Lenna" picture for image processing? The full original Lenna centerfolds hanging on the wall? A background screensaver showing people having sex? Or on a related subject, a cross hanging on the wall, along with quotes from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", and prayers to start off each workplace meeting? Mounted trophy heads from all of the hunts from various staff outings? A mariachi band walking through the offices every 10 minutes? Unairconditioned offices next to a pig farm and under the approach path to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport?

Each case is personal, and one's personal decision to avoid a certain workplace or even career must not be considered a weakness.

If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...

This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous.

Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.

You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.

man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.

Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.

you probably didn't read what Petrie multiplier is - it clearly explains why heavily disbalanced industry like hi-tech consisting of practically non-sexist/non-racist Jesus-es would feel like sexist and racist environment by the corresponding minorities. Onus is on you to show that people in the industry are actually sexist and racist - according to Petrie multiplier, minorities feeling bad isn't enough to conclude that the majority consists of sexist and racist people.

You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism. It doesn't matter whether it is a majority. I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

>You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism.

misunderstanding is all yours. Equal sexism results in worse experience by the members of minority. Equal experience would necessarily require lower sexism displayed by the members of the majority - read the Petrie multiplier post again if you don't understand that statement. Thus push for equal experience in a male dominated environment is an equivalent of push for the males in that environment to display lower sexism than the women in the same environment. In other words it is an "attack on men".

>I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

And there is no reason why people shouldn't violate red light. In theory. They do it in practice.

Is it hysteria to suggest that what men in a male dominated field think is appropriate might have statistical significance in the representation of women?