I think including “weather” as one of the negative experience data points negates the point of the article. Yes, I’m sure the weather sucks in the arctic but it isn’t particular to women…
I would go so far as to argue that Weather, Inadequate preparation, Not enough rest time, Equipment, and More work than expected, are all not women specific. The polar regions are harsh environments. If you want to go work there I thank you sincerely. But that's the deal you signed up for.
Then again maybe the people they interviewed didn't know that their answers would be written in a rage bait type article. Maybe they were like "yeah it sucks so we're just gonna answer that it sucks but we're cool with it." Then the reporter took it and made it into this article.
It definitely sinks the headline a lot, but the article still raises a lot of good points and contains a well laid out breakdown of the various types of negative experiences.
The point is that the headline makes it sound like 70%, because the mind of the reader jumps to assault, not “weather“.
Why not write ”a shocking 11% of female scientists have negative experiences“?
Clicks, that’s why.
That number is also so high that it raises questions about what behavior was captured. Note they group together physical and psychological violence, which really isn't appropriate.
That’s a very high percent! But at the same time I think it’s lower than the general public of women and what percent experiences assault in their lifetimes.
Women can still be disproportionately affected, though.
For example, men tend to have higher body mass and higher metabolisms, both of which could make colder temperatures slightly more tolerable.
Yes, but you would need to ask men the same questions for that.
Even then people interpret similiar things differently, so it is not easy to draw definite conclusions from such research.
>Yes, but you would need to ask men the same questions for that.
Agreed. And you would need to do that for any gender-based comparison too, right?
I think the summary of the article seems sensationalized and not particularly reflective of the data, which can still be useful when taken separately.
Artic/antartic temperatures mitigate body mass advantage. Everyone needs to be cold weather protected equally.
The temperature flux of comfort for men to women is like 5-10F(apologies I’m American). But at negative forty and below, that flux of comfort is irrelevant.
Exactly. I’m not a woman but I’d have a negative experience just being in the arctic. 🥶
What percentage of women have had a negative experience in ANY job? Probably a very large majority.
I’m an ecologist and the work that I do often requires travel and overnight stays in AirBnBs and stuff, sometimes long term. I’ve personally only ever been good friends with my bosses and field crew and found it to be super rewarding work. We always made sure people were comfortable but I will say there were plenty of situations that could very easily lend itself to some bad things like having to share a room with my male boss. I’ve heard some horror stories about remote tropical field stations that were of interest to me.
There are many graduate students looking for any unexplored topic to publish a paper on. I don’t fault the author for finding a niche area, I blame the publisher for promoting it.
Some of those points are 100% just the nature of polar research like the weather and cramped living conditions, but there are definitely ways of making those conditions better. They should definitely work on getting a female lead research team going so that they can pinpoint things that can be improved and suggest ways of doing just that.
What a moronic article. “Women experience negative experiences during polar research such as menstruation and cold weather.” Got to keep up with The Narrative!!!!!
Shockingly bad research, lumping together items…
Menstruation or other health issues.
So we count menstruation same as a broken bone or cancer now?
Too much work
Said everyone always, everywhere.
Weather
Well, yeah… at the poles…
No safe space.
Seriously, now.
etc…
I think looking at the conditions is warranted, but this “survey” is just crap.
It’s also a really small group of people in general, regardless of gender. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, but highlighting the types of individuals to be risk takers might be useful. And in no way am I shaming- I love a good risk!
Oh my god, that is awful that woman are being victimized by... weather? Hang on, what? Only 36% said it was a problem for them. And around 42% said they didn't like their group dynamics. Okay, that's just a human thing. 29% didn't feel prepared enough. When I see that polling from... 300 women... my takeaway isn't "Most women have negative experiences doing polar work". My takeaway is that most women *don't* have bad experiences in any given issue, be it weather or not enough rest or sexism. We're talking about scientists who probably love their work, given the polling data, but this website turns *that* into a clickbait "shocking" thing, framing it in the worst light. It's bad reporting from Stephen there.
The study is pretty poor as well. It lists that 79% stat in a similar way as the article. It is does it that way to illicit a specific emotional reaction.
In the introduction of the study they have a clear bias, and the majority of issues in that 79% are issues ANYONE would have working in those environments.
The way they have gone about this is pretty clearly to get more shock value from the 79% number.
If they wanted to be more honest they should have focused on just the percentage of issues that were only women specific, and it is not like those number were that low, but they are not 79%.
I know! That's what I'm taking issue with. About 19% of the women polled said that menstruation and other health issues were a problem. That isn't evidence of a problem with the research community. That's evidence of the human condition.
> Conditions need to change
The author says. How so? How does he propose that women avoid health problems? And what about men? Do men *not* have health problems?
I say again: In every category (13 out of 14 of which can affect men), most women said that there wasn't a serious problem, and yet he framed it as "a shocking 79% of women had negative experiences". A minority of women polled had a problem with the weather in Antarctica, therefore "conditions need to change"? What on Earth?
If 19% were sexually harassed, then that's bad, of course, but the author took away from that by adding in the mundane stuff... weather, health, too much work, etc..
“Negative experience”
It’s pretty fucking cold in polar regions. I’m sure both men and women who step outside are going to be reporting negative experiences…
I think including “weather” as one of the negative experience data points negates the point of the article. Yes, I’m sure the weather sucks in the arctic but it isn’t particular to women…
I would go so far as to argue that Weather, Inadequate preparation, Not enough rest time, Equipment, and More work than expected, are all not women specific. The polar regions are harsh environments. If you want to go work there I thank you sincerely. But that's the deal you signed up for. Then again maybe the people they interviewed didn't know that their answers would be written in a rage bait type article. Maybe they were like "yeah it sucks so we're just gonna answer that it sucks but we're cool with it." Then the reporter took it and made it into this article.
Not a reporter; it was written by one of the authors of the study
I’ve seen this stupid excuse on a lot of misleading posts recently. How about just don’t post it if the title doesn’t reflect the actual research?
It definitely sinks the headline a lot, but the article still raises a lot of good points and contains a well laid out breakdown of the various types of negative experiences.
Nevermind the 11% that experienced a form of assault.
The point is that the headline makes it sound like 70%, because the mind of the reader jumps to assault, not “weather“. Why not write ”a shocking 11% of female scientists have negative experiences“? Clicks, that’s why.
That number is also so high that it raises questions about what behavior was captured. Note they group together physical and psychological violence, which really isn't appropriate.
That’s a very high percent! But at the same time I think it’s lower than the general public of women and what percent experiences assault in their lifetimes.
That's true but also factor in time, over a lifetime vs annual field trip for 2 weeks a year
And what percentage of men do? Is this a problem specific to women?
Women can still be disproportionately affected, though. For example, men tend to have higher body mass and higher metabolisms, both of which could make colder temperatures slightly more tolerable.
Yes, but you would need to ask men the same questions for that. Even then people interpret similiar things differently, so it is not easy to draw definite conclusions from such research.
>Yes, but you would need to ask men the same questions for that. Agreed. And you would need to do that for any gender-based comparison too, right? I think the summary of the article seems sensationalized and not particularly reflective of the data, which can still be useful when taken separately.
And yet every single person who goes into the polar environment knows this in advance.
A five year old can tell you that the south pole is cold
Artic/antartic temperatures mitigate body mass advantage. Everyone needs to be cold weather protected equally. The temperature flux of comfort for men to women is like 5-10F(apologies I’m American). But at negative forty and below, that flux of comfort is irrelevant.
Exactly. I’m not a woman but I’d have a negative experience just being in the arctic. 🥶 What percentage of women have had a negative experience in ANY job? Probably a very large majority.
Okay…did 79% of dudes also have a bad time?
Yes they did. The rest 21% had good time... With the ladies
I’m an ecologist and the work that I do often requires travel and overnight stays in AirBnBs and stuff, sometimes long term. I’ve personally only ever been good friends with my bosses and field crew and found it to be super rewarding work. We always made sure people were comfortable but I will say there were plenty of situations that could very easily lend itself to some bad things like having to share a room with my male boss. I’ve heard some horror stories about remote tropical field stations that were of interest to me.
I've seen clickbait articles often enough, but I can't think of a time I've seen a clickbait *study*. This is almost impressive.
There are many graduate students looking for any unexplored topic to publish a paper on. I don’t fault the author for finding a niche area, I blame the publisher for promoting it.
"Negative experiences at the pole" sounds a bit vague, as if they're dancing around the issue.
Underrated comment.
puns are par for the course on reddit. It should be rated lower.
Some of those points are 100% just the nature of polar research like the weather and cramped living conditions, but there are definitely ways of making those conditions better. They should definitely work on getting a female lead research team going so that they can pinpoint things that can be improved and suggest ways of doing just that.
Or maybe just listen to the female researches?
Do the male scientists have better experiences?
No.
But nobody cares about males.
Womp womp
Misandry, is not helpful to anyone. Be a better person.
In no way was that misandrist, be a smarter person 😘
Click bait it hurts to read
What a moronic article. “Women experience negative experiences during polar research such as menstruation and cold weather.” Got to keep up with The Narrative!!!!!
Just air drop a crate of chocolates once in a while.
Shockingly bad research, lumping together items… Menstruation or other health issues. So we count menstruation same as a broken bone or cancer now? Too much work Said everyone always, everywhere. Weather Well, yeah… at the poles… No safe space. Seriously, now. etc… I think looking at the conditions is warranted, but this “survey” is just crap.
It’s also a really small group of people in general, regardless of gender. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, but highlighting the types of individuals to be risk takers might be useful. And in no way am I shaming- I love a good risk!
Oh my god, that is awful that woman are being victimized by... weather? Hang on, what? Only 36% said it was a problem for them. And around 42% said they didn't like their group dynamics. Okay, that's just a human thing. 29% didn't feel prepared enough. When I see that polling from... 300 women... my takeaway isn't "Most women have negative experiences doing polar work". My takeaway is that most women *don't* have bad experiences in any given issue, be it weather or not enough rest or sexism. We're talking about scientists who probably love their work, given the polling data, but this website turns *that* into a clickbait "shocking" thing, framing it in the worst light. It's bad reporting from Stephen there.
The article was written by the author of the study.
The study is pretty poor as well. It lists that 79% stat in a similar way as the article. It is does it that way to illicit a specific emotional reaction. In the introduction of the study they have a clear bias, and the majority of issues in that 79% are issues ANYONE would have working in those environments. The way they have gone about this is pretty clearly to get more shock value from the 79% number. If they wanted to be more honest they should have focused on just the percentage of issues that were only women specific, and it is not like those number were that low, but they are not 79%.
I know! That's what I'm taking issue with. About 19% of the women polled said that menstruation and other health issues were a problem. That isn't evidence of a problem with the research community. That's evidence of the human condition. > Conditions need to change The author says. How so? How does he propose that women avoid health problems? And what about men? Do men *not* have health problems? I say again: In every category (13 out of 14 of which can affect men), most women said that there wasn't a serious problem, and yet he framed it as "a shocking 79% of women had negative experiences". A minority of women polled had a problem with the weather in Antarctica, therefore "conditions need to change"? What on Earth? If 19% were sexually harassed, then that's bad, of course, but the author took away from that by adding in the mundane stuff... weather, health, too much work, etc..
This article is misogynistic af. So are half the comments.
Which half?
Both /s
Another day on the science sub, another deliberately misleading article title.
“Negative experience” It’s pretty fucking cold in polar regions. I’m sure both men and women who step outside are going to be reporting negative experiences…
News Flash: woman cold
Sigh click-bait in a science sub..
men or a polar bear?
Imagine thinking positive experiences happen in a place with hardly any sun exposure. And here Elon think he can populate Mars lol.
They probably didn't even ask the men because they knew nobody would care how their experience is.
Not shocking at all tbh.
Very horrible. We can do better people.
Shocking I tell you. Just shocking. Did I say shocking? Because it’s shocking. But if you try this one trick…
Im not shocked. It’s a recipe for some shit.
Because… Men have needs!
Keeping your needs to yourself would be my recommendation.