Tag Archives: bias

Linkspam: The Gathering (12 October, 2012)

  • Viewpoint: More women needed in technology | BBC: “Dr Gloria Moss, a gender marketing expert, confirms that when targeting women, having female input on the design team is crucial: “In design preference tests, I’ve always found extremely strong statistical evidence for ‘same-sex preference’. Men tend to prefer the designs that men produce, and women prefer the designs that women produce.””
  • E-mails Ignored, Meetings Denied: Bias at the Search Stage Limits Diversity | Knowledge @ Wharton: “Using an experiment that explored the treatment of prospective applicants to doctoral programs, they found that professors were significantly less likely to be responsive to communication from women or minority applicants — and that the level of unresponsiveness was greater within academic disciplines that tend to pay more, and at private institutions, where faculty salaries are higher on average.”
  • A primer on sexism in the tech industry | .net magazine: “Designer and developer Faruk Ateş, the man behind Modernizr, says that sexism is hurting our industry in more significant ways than most people realise. Here he explains what it’s all about and what we can do to address this issue.”
  • Busting a Cyberstalker: How Carla Franklin Fought Back | The Daily Beast: “After just a few casual dates with a guy, Carla Franklin faced six years of harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying. Now she’s suing him—in a new frontier of online crimes. Her story, as told to Abigail Pesta.”

You can suggest links for future linkspams in comments here, or by using the “geekfeminism” tag on delicious or pinboard.in or the “#geekfeminism” tag on Twitter. Please note that we tend to stick to publishing recent links (from the last month or so).

Thanks to everyone who suggested links.

Wall of Spam, by freezelight on Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

Linkspam as portrayed by an actress from a younger generation

Yes, that’s right, linkspams are back! Rebooted! New director! New continuity!

No, not really. Same people. Same style. We’ve just been a bit collectively discouraged by the Delicious disaster, the Google Reader implosion and the neverending freelish.us outage. Talk about making bookmarking unfun. But we’re going to try again, right now supporting pulling bookmarks from Delicious, Pinboard and Twitter. In order to not have to have 200 bookmarks, we’re just going to start afresh with some recent-ish links and go from there. Apologies to people who submitted things in the interim, post them in comments for others to catch up on.

You can suggest links for future linkspams in comments here, or by using the “geekfeminism” tag on delicious or pinboard.in or the “#geekfeminism” tag on Twitter. Please note that we tend to stick to publishing recent links (from the last month or so).

Thanks to everyone who suggested links.

Wikipedia and non-mainstream views

I was cynical about Wikipedia’s openness to minority views in the comments of a previous post, I’m a woman, and I’ve edited Wikipedia. Based on past experience as a former, obsessive Wikipedia editor several years ago, I felt that Wikipedia’s notability guidelines amplified mainstream views while suppressing non-mainstream views. This works for dealing with quackery, but it also frames white, male worldviews as objective and universal.

However, it’s not all hopeless.

David Sindel has edited the Wikipedia article on Rape culture (trigger warning) by including prominent examples of rape culture: people defending Roman Polanski, Julian Assange, and Penny Arcade because they are famous. I thought that the protests of feminist and survivor bloggers (and microbloggers) would be considered non-notable, but his edits remain.

(David Sindel had e-mailed me to ask about other examples of rape culture criticisms that have received press coverage. Do you know of others?)

I also checked out the unfortunate Nice Guy Wikipedia article just now, and it now includes a criticism of “nice guy” from Heartless Bitches International (HBI)*. Things are getting better, even if there was a notability fight.

It is possible to edit Wikipedia with non-mainstream views and not have your edits reverted. The Geek Feminism Wiki also works as an alternative to Wikipedia for some topics.

* Fun fact: Heartless Bitches International was started in 1996 by a Canadian, female software developer named “Natalie P”, and “It was one of the earlier websites catering specifically towards women at a time when the World Wide Web was largely a male domain.”

The opposite of fun: how would you build an educational game about bias?

A friend of mine sent me a link to this article about a $2 Million Grant To Develop Game That Breaks Bias Against Women In Sciences, and he pointed out that making hard work decisions (as you do in the game) sounds rather like the opposite of fun.

The game will aim to put players in situations that could reveal such bias. For instance a faculty member might be asked by the game to hire a top scientist who requires wheelchair accessibility. Or a resume might have a work experience gap because of child-rearing, with the game asking players to consider their knee-jerk response to such situations.

In that example it also sounds a little too easy as a game. Sit down, think diversely, and make that decision. As commenters have pointed out here in previous threads in unconscious bias, it’s fairly easy to game those tests if you concentrate. You’re being led to a certain type of answer, and figuring out what that is can be very obvious. Just like other unconscious bias tests, you’re learning something in the process of having to concentrate, but I feel like maybe you could do better.

So here’s a question: how do you think you could make a different game that examined bias?

Off the wall ideas encouraged: I suspect thinking too conventionally is part of what results in educational games that just aren’t very different from previous attempts and maybe aren’t that much fun. Could you educate about hiring bias using a platformer? (What would an accessible platformer level look like?) Using a massively multiplayer online game? (Could you cause players to lose points for harassing other players? For telling sexist jokes in the trade channel?) Using a casual Facebook game? (bias vs farmville?) Using a role playing framework? (Could you play the minority candidates and experience bias from the other side and have to triumph despite it? e.g. doing the “same” job interview and discovering that your gender/race results in very different questions from the interviewer.)

The Myth of White Male Geek Rationality

This post was originally published at Restructure!

People who consider themselves fully rational individuals are ignorant about basic psychology and their own minds.

It is easy for white men in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields to perceive themselves as more rational than other groups, because our society associates rationality with whites, men, and STEM professionals. When white men in STEM fields believe in this stereotype, they might assume that bias is more common in non-white people, women, and people in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. After all, these other groups seem to want to discuss bias more often, and unexamined associative “reasoning” would link bias to those who bring up the topic of bias. Under logical scrutiny, however, it does not follow that the act of thinking about bias makes one more biased.

Green Red Blue
Purple Blue Purple


Blue Purple Red
Green Purple Green


the Stroop effect refers to the fact that naming the color of the first set of words is easier and quicker than the second.

A basic tenet of contemporary psychology is that mental activity can be unconscious. Unconscious simply refers to any mental activity that is “not conscious”, and it is not equivalent to the unscientific New Age concept of the Subconscious. A good example of unconscious mental activity interfering with conscious intentions is the Stroop effect (right). If you try to name the colours of the colour words aloud, the first set of colours will be easier to name than the second set of colours, because you unconsciously read the words. This means that you do not have full control over your thoughts and behaviour, and your willpower or logical reasoning cannot overcome the unconscious cultural bias of being able to read in English. Of course, there are other unconscious cultural biases aside from English literacy bias.

Continue reading

Male geeks reclaim masculinity at the expense of female geeks.

This post was originally published at Restructure!

Most male geeks believe that they are subverting traditional masculinity by reclaiming and self-identifying with the term “geek”. For most male geeks, geek identity is defined partly as a rejection of the “jock” identity. According to the traditional high school male social hierarchy, jocks are high-status males and male geeks are low-status males; jocks are alpha males and male geeks are beta males; jocks are masculine and male geeks are “effeminate”. Thus, when a man proudly self-identifies as a “geek” in response, what he is doing is redefining what it is to be a man, redefining geek identity as masculine.

Continue reading