Some cited examples simply show reporters cite Nobel Laureates first, which meant men in these cases. Fame and title may likewise explain why former CEA Chair Christina Romer always gets top billing in studies co-authored with her husband David. Yet that may also be because Christina Romer had an awesome scholarly reputation long before she became President Obama's top economist. And if anyone really thinks Janet Yellen gets less attention than her husband, George Akerlof, try Googling both names.
1
But there is also a history of women being demoted or written out as contributors to Nobel considerations. See the domino?
1
Great article. Enlightening. Amazing how the the most frequent violators are other academics and political Liberals like Ralph Nader. They are the first to accuse Conservatives of gender bias, but are blind to their own indiscretions.
4
Even you fell into this trap, Mr. Wolfers.
You wrote "Full disclosure: Mr. Katz was my dissertation adviser, and Ms. Goldin, his romantic partner, is a dear friend."
You could just as easily have written "Full disclosure: Ms. Goldin is a dear friend, and Mr. Katz, her romantic partner, was my dissertation.
The journalistic habit to break is to describe a woman in terms of her relationship to a man. Either do it the other way, or omit the information.
You wrote "Full disclosure: Mr. Katz was my dissertation adviser, and Ms. Goldin, his romantic partner, is a dear friend."
You could just as easily have written "Full disclosure: Ms. Goldin is a dear friend, and Mr. Katz, her romantic partner, was my dissertation.
The journalistic habit to break is to describe a woman in terms of her relationship to a man. Either do it the other way, or omit the information.
13
Academic disclosures always cite one's dissertation advisers and collaborators first, and friends, if at all, second.
3
Or, perhaps, "Professor Goldin is a dear friend. Professor Katz was my advisor. The two are romantic partners."
3
Eye-opening article. Thanks for doing this piece.
4
The problem I think these women are having, from Janet Yellen to Anne Case, is that they co-authoring papers with their economist husbands in which they seem to kowtow to a fiction that men are not responsible for half the uncompensated work of raising their children. Angus Deaton is very Scottish and as much as their "every child has a father" history is admired and has been a substantial contribution to the world (especially from a tiny country), their cultural ideal is inadequate at recognizing what children actually need.
The "dying Middle Aged whites" in the US that Case and Deaton have identified are largely in regions with historically excessive fertility rates, excessive family size, that were settled by (a) 1700s Scottish immigrants who refused to follow the Bill of Rights in 1689 and immigrated to Appalachia (where they wrote "rights of man" state constitutions in conflict with the U.S. Constitution) and (b) 1800s and 1900s Catholic immigrants.
Janet Yellen did the same thing in a paper she wrote with her husband during the Clinton years.
The "dying Middle Aged whites" in the US that Case and Deaton have identified are largely in regions with historically excessive fertility rates, excessive family size, that were settled by (a) 1700s Scottish immigrants who refused to follow the Bill of Rights in 1689 and immigrated to Appalachia (where they wrote "rights of man" state constitutions in conflict with the U.S. Constitution) and (b) 1800s and 1900s Catholic immigrants.
Janet Yellen did the same thing in a paper she wrote with her husband during the Clinton years.
2
What does this have to do with how the authors of a paper are referred to?
4
The women are not getting respect because they don't respect themselves. They are not challenging economic fallacies in their husbands' theories.
2
Yes, you are right. But it cuts both ways, and there is also a lot of politically correct grandstanding in this article. For instance, as you are no doubt aware, female economists are also often invited to participate in events to get the "balance" right rather than because they bring superior expertise. That extends to appointments too.
My sense is that we need two (or possibly many) conversations that distinguish discrimination by class and, maybe also, by stage of career: one about discrimination among elite professionals, and one about discrimination among ordinary working people.
It is not clear female elite professionals suffer from gender discrimination overall, whereas I am absolutely sure discrimination is rife for other less privileged groups of women.
My sense is that we need two (or possibly many) conversations that distinguish discrimination by class and, maybe also, by stage of career: one about discrimination among elite professionals, and one about discrimination among ordinary working people.
It is not clear female elite professionals suffer from gender discrimination overall, whereas I am absolutely sure discrimination is rife for other less privileged groups of women.
2
"For instance, as you are no doubt aware, female economists are also often invited to participate in events to get the "balance" right rather than because they bring superior expertise."
Seriously?
How often?
And what do we mean by "superior" expertise? Do they need to be on a level with the men at the events, or do they need to be superior to the men just to get a place at the table?
Seriously?
How often?
And what do we mean by "superior" expertise? Do they need to be on a level with the men at the events, or do they need to be superior to the men just to get a place at the table?
5
Yes, sexism still flourishes, not just for economists but for women in all walks of life. This phenomenon fuels many recent setbacks and current threats to gains in equality, not just for women but for minority groups. It is one reason to watch out for the regressive behavior and actions of the ultra-conservative Republican voices that have emerged in national politics, and a very good reason to help sustain responsible and informed groups like Planned Parenthood. They benefit society as a whole and support a thriving democracy where equality and lack of bigotry are the hallmarks and where separation of church and state, a founding principle, is fully respected. Too many of us, women and men alike, look the other way when constant diligence is required, and many of our young women take things for granted. Good for Justin Wolfers.
3
An enlightening article.
2
thanks for a thoughtful analysis of what happens to accomplished women all too often.
5
In the biomedical field it has been known for dual authors to take turns at being first author, so both are regarded as equal contributors. In most cases they're males & are recognizable as distinct entities with unique talents. As for husband & wife academics, where the male partner gets greater recognition, part of the problem is that in many cases women perpetuate the subservient stereotype by pandering to stereotypes within the wider culture, views perpetuated by the MSM machine. But I suspect this maybe an unconscious reaction to the inferior status of women in society in general, an attempt to gain partial acceptance by conforming to the stereotype, rather than questioning it and being labeled a virago and having their intellectual output ignored altogether. Within a marriage this situation may be less of an issue since marriage itself is inherently a deeply sexist intstitution and husband & wife teams have assented to their respective roles, consciously or otherwise. The situation between male and females colleagues, however, is different and it is wrong to conflate the two. Things here have the potential to get ugly, and I suspect before it gets to that, many partners decide to marry.
I don't think that by marrying, women are automatically assenting to a lesser role. I sure didn't.
6
Very interesting article. That said, I clicked on your name at the bottom of the page because I was interested in who you were. Imagine my surprise when I read this tweet: "Justin Wolfers @JustinWolfers
By the power vested in me by Yale undergrads, I hereby declare it beer o'clock, and proclaim this bar is a safe space for discussing my pain"
Please know that the wrath of the internet can be a harsh thing, Prof. Wolfers!
By the power vested in me by Yale undergrads, I hereby declare it beer o'clock, and proclaim this bar is a safe space for discussing my pain"
Please know that the wrath of the internet can be a harsh thing, Prof. Wolfers!
1
The worst part about this is if you call attention to the unfair treatment you are seen as a bad sport and not a team player. In other words, first you get kicked off the team and then you get criticized for not playing.
17
Thank you for writing this!
6
The rules of authorship order vary amongst different academic disciplines, and Mr. Wolter's article doesn't make it clear how it works in Econ. In the biomedical sciences, the first author is almost always a junior person, frequently a post doc or grad student, and the last author is the senior person, usually the director of the lab and usually the person who actually holds the grant funding that supported the work. Biomedical articles rarely have just 2 authors, since there are almost always other people who contributed to the work and merit authorship. For large clinical research articles, the first author usually is one of the senior people who led the study. In contrast, in physics it’s usually the senior author who is first. The point of all of this is that it may well be appropriate to focus on the senior author.
2
? The fourth paragraph says that economists deviate from alphabetical ordering only to indicate a junior author, and in the Goldin-Katz paper Professor Goldin signed the article first. I think it's pretty clear from the article that the first name for an econ paper is the primary author; the whole point of the article is that journalists are giving the male, secondary authors more prominent status. I don't think it would be unfair to list them second (although the downplaying of the credentials is frustrating) if the women on the articles cited were, in fact, the secondary authors; the whole idea is they're not.
7
No: the first author is the one whose last name comes first in alphabetical order. The order of names almost never has anything to do with contribution. There is *no* primary author.
And in exactly what field is it a common practice for the authors to be listed alphabetically? The only place I have seen that happen is in large NASA funded missions where a paper might list tens or even hundreds of contributing authors.
From Joan Robinson at Cambridge, England to Ann Case or Betsey Stevenson in the USA, nothing much has changed.
5
Thank you very much for this disturbing article. I hope that The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Financial Times and Slate will seize the opportunity to issue public apologies for their misleading reporting about these women economists -- and take action to prevent the ongoing damage that this kind of bias causes.
14
I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any sexism here, but I do wonder whether the examples you raise have more to do with which author won the Nobel Prize than which author is male and which is female.
Oh, and Akerlof and Yellen did write some very important macroeconomic papers together, perhaps some of the earliest and most insightful underpinnings of New Keynesian thinking, so while Ralph Nader might be a lousy economist he might also be making a keen observation that these two seem to develop really amazing things together.
For full disclosure: I learned macroeconomics from George Akerlof, and he was wonderful.
Oh, and Akerlof and Yellen did write some very important macroeconomic papers together, perhaps some of the earliest and most insightful underpinnings of New Keynesian thinking, so while Ralph Nader might be a lousy economist he might also be making a keen observation that these two seem to develop really amazing things together.
For full disclosure: I learned macroeconomics from George Akerlof, and he was wonderful.
5
Excellent column! But I am left wondering if part of the problem might be in-house style guidelines and editorial training at major media outlets. If (and I don't know if they do) these formal rules and informal conventions still direct people to list husbands first in couples (which was certainly the rule and policy for decades), some of the examples you sight might even reflect "corrections" by editors of original text that left the author order as listed on the study. Other cases might also be journalists shaping their work to the format expected by superiors.
None of which is meant by way of excuse or mitigation, just offered in good faith to explore a problem that needs immediate correction.
None of which is meant by way of excuse or mitigation, just offered in good faith to explore a problem that needs immediate correction.
2
Right on the money justin! I am pretty sure these are the subconscious biases that are due to what you think is the norm. You can extend the same line of reasoning to other kinds of discrimination based on race and class. Thanks for a nice article!
4
Am I the only one who noticed that G comes before K in the alphabet?
3
The NYT has a policy of affirmative anti-alphabeticism. It's a real social issue with real impact on real people's lives.
John Zyrd
John Zyrd
3
I think that was the point being made by the author. G came before K, and that would be standard procedure in any article, providing that K was not the lead researcher. HOWEVER, this protocol was dismissed by the reporter, who chose to reverse the authorship to K before G, ignoring standard protocol for no other reason than a personal notion that K's contribution was seen as more esteemed and qualified to lead.
7
No, I think that's intentional. Since G comes before K, Katz would have been before Goldin on the article only if they wanted to signal that Goldin was a secondary author on the article. Since her name was first on the article, there's no reason to think she's a junior author or any reason to bill her second; she's either the primary or they wrote it roughly equally.
2
Even the first NYT accompanying photo features a man, over a woman. He's in the center, while she's off to the side.
15
Thanks for a very important article. Like other forms of discrimination, this one is of course still happening. Good to see it pointed up, and backed with clear information.
7
"Close your eyes for a moment, and picture an economist. Odds are you pictured a man."
I did, and here's why. Many years ago, I earned a degree in Economics at the University of Chicago, where none of my Economics professors was female. In fact, I never had any class at UC that was led by a woman.
So even today, when I shut my eyes and picture a professor...yup, you guessed it, he's wearing trousers. I am very happy that things have changed since, and wish that the media would catch up with the changes. The author is correct.
I did, and here's why. Many years ago, I earned a degree in Economics at the University of Chicago, where none of my Economics professors was female. In fact, I never had any class at UC that was led by a woman.
So even today, when I shut my eyes and picture a professor...yup, you guessed it, he's wearing trousers. I am very happy that things have changed since, and wish that the media would catch up with the changes. The author is correct.
7
And, of course, Joan Robinson never got the Nobel Prize she so richly deserved.
6
I have followed the alphabetical order convention in all but a handful of my jointly authored publications. In a few of cases the "second author" was a graduate student assistant, and listing my name first reflected our relative contributions to the project and the publication.
In a couple of other cases, however, I took some advice from an uncle of mine who was a professor in the physical sciences where the idea of "lead author = lead researcher" was strong. Often, in fact, research teams in the physical sciences were very large, with numerous listed coauthors headed up by the lead researcher.
When I took my uncle's advice on those two cases, I created a rift with my co-author who before that (as well as after this event) had always been listed first, following the alphabetical order of our surnames. For the coauthor, this was a "signal" to the academy that I was the lead researcher on the project. I regret that I insisted on this for those two articles. I should have resigned myself to the existential fact that the odds favored my being the second (or later) listed author if alphabetical order was conventional in my field.
In a couple of other cases, however, I took some advice from an uncle of mine who was a professor in the physical sciences where the idea of "lead author = lead researcher" was strong. Often, in fact, research teams in the physical sciences were very large, with numerous listed coauthors headed up by the lead researcher.
When I took my uncle's advice on those two cases, I created a rift with my co-author who before that (as well as after this event) had always been listed first, following the alphabetical order of our surnames. For the coauthor, this was a "signal" to the academy that I was the lead researcher on the project. I regret that I insisted on this for those two articles. I should have resigned myself to the existential fact that the odds favored my being the second (or later) listed author if alphabetical order was conventional in my field.
1
In 1970 our friend, who had recently graduated with a Masters in Economics, applied for a job teaching math and economics in a Boston high school. She was excited to be promptly hired only to discover on her first day of work that she had been placed in their Home Economics Department where she was expected to teach cooking and sewing. Progress is creeping along but we do need to keep pushing!
7
This article makes an excellent point, but neglects the obvious counter example of Nobel Prize in Economics winner Elinor Ostrom and her husband/collaborator Vincent Ostrom. That said, Ostrom received ridiculous and uncalled for amounts of scrutiny after winning the Nobel -- many who did so disguised their rather overt sexism in claims that her work was not sufficiently economic in nature.
8
Repugnant, infuriating, startling. AND Exhausting.
8
It made me furious to see Ann Case "standing by her man" when she deserved the credit for an incredibly important finding about rising white working class men's mortality rates. It's just as bad in other academic fields. At least female economists earn more than other female social scientists.
7
"The accumulation of these slights . . ." You mean microaggressions don't you? Why don't these female economists take to the streets? Demand Sulzberger's resignation at the very least! That Janet Yellen is head of the Federal Reserve or Goldin president of the American Economic Association is of no more significance than that the fact that Payton Head, the black man who started the protest against the pervasive, unchecked racism at U. of Missouri, had been elected president of the student body. Tokenism is not enough.
3
Wow ......so good to see a clear factual description of this all too real bias. I have often thought that in some ways I am very lucky to be in a completely different profession than my husband -- but just due to proximity it often happens that professional women will marry someone in from their graduate program or in their same profession. Even so, this type of bias happens all to frequently in the work place -- the assumption when working as a team that the male members are given precedence over the female, even when the leader of the team is female.
8
Many thanks for this piece. Wonderful, eloquent--and startling article. We need many more studies like this to give us a real perspective.
5
I am so glad to see this article published! I wrote a letter to the editor at the NY Times about Gina Kolota's piece which was not published and so I paste it here in the comments. This gender gap -- no -- this gender discrimination is indeed significant for female economists, female scientists, and female academics in general.
"Gina Kolata wrote a fantastic piece about why more white people die from suicide and substance abuse. The reporting is great, but the attribution to the professors who wrote the article is sexist. She noted "The two Princeton economics professors — Angus Deaton and his wife, Anne Case — who wrote the report that is the subject of my front-page article today about rising death rates for middle-aged white Americans, have no clear answer, only speculation."
Anne Case is the lead author of the study. Her name should come first. Moreover, her marital status is irrelevant to the science and should not have been mentioned at all. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the reverse would have been written about Professor Angus: "Anne Case and her husband Angus Deaton"...
Female scientists face enough sexism and discrimination in the lab. Lets at least give them their due in the media. "
"Gina Kolata wrote a fantastic piece about why more white people die from suicide and substance abuse. The reporting is great, but the attribution to the professors who wrote the article is sexist. She noted "The two Princeton economics professors — Angus Deaton and his wife, Anne Case — who wrote the report that is the subject of my front-page article today about rising death rates for middle-aged white Americans, have no clear answer, only speculation."
Anne Case is the lead author of the study. Her name should come first. Moreover, her marital status is irrelevant to the science and should not have been mentioned at all. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the reverse would have been written about Professor Angus: "Anne Case and her husband Angus Deaton"...
Female scientists face enough sexism and discrimination in the lab. Lets at least give them their due in the media. "
30
Ralph Nader's letter is the most egregious example listed here. He should be ashamed of himself.
20
Thank you for writing this article. If a woman had written it, no one would believe her. Disheartening to see that even smart, feminist women perpetrate these micro-aggressions and slights. I've noted that Janet Yellen gets a different kind of scrutiny and second guessing than Greenspan or Bernanke ever did.
14
I watched CNBC for a few days while I had a virus. They refer to the Fed often and show photos of regional Fed members but hardly mention Janet Yellen by name or show a photo. It was startling.
6
Most of this commentary appears to provide at least anecdotal support to Pierre Bourdieu's notion of "habitus," that largely unstated set of habits and rules by which distinction is meted out in any community, including academic and journalistic communities. Perhaps economists, in particular, need to get out more, get out of the bubble, although, in my ungenerous moods (like my present one), I think this is true of academics generally.
4
It's great to see a man stand UP for and Behind his wife. An instructive and inspiring article.
8
This is infuriating! I'm so glad that you brought this to our attention. Editors of all kinds should place a high priority on getting attributions correct. It would be one step forward, at least, NY Times!
8
This topic has a great deal of relevance given the large number of professional households in which both husband and wife (or domestic partners) are highly competent and well regarded in their fields. My thesis is that it is not unique to either economics or academia. Here in RI, we have a female governor who is a lawyer, Rhodes scholar, Oxford University doctorate holder and hedge fund principal. Her husband is a senior practice expert and co-founder of the Global Education Practice at McKinsey & Co., an international management consulting firm that serves as an adviser to businesses, government and institutions. Which of them gets top billing, the Governor or the First Husband?
3
My wife and Janet Yellen have a lot in common. Every few days my wife hits the department stores and returns home just before dark lugging bagfuls of stuff, mostly hats, dresses and shoes. Then 2 or 3 days later, she returns all or most of the stuff and starts all over again.
Dr. Yellen, with her off-again, on-again views about raising the interest rates, does essentially the same. I tolerate my wife's behavior because she is a good girl, and because I am scared to do otherwise. Dr. Yellen, however, is a different story. Much as I revere high-maintenance women, one-at-a-time is enough for me.
Dr. Yellen, with her off-again, on-again views about raising the interest rates, does essentially the same. I tolerate my wife's behavior because she is a good girl, and because I am scared to do otherwise. Dr. Yellen, however, is a different story. Much as I revere high-maintenance women, one-at-a-time is enough for me.
1
Comparing the Fed Chair to an indecisive shopper is a bit sexist, don't you think?
I'm sure you know much more about monetary policy than does Dr. Yellen.
I'm sure you know much more about monetary policy than does Dr. Yellen.
17
What I think is:
1. P. Obama should have stuck with Larry Summers, the way he wanted to.
2. You didn't like my try at a joke because you are a very politically- correct guy.
3. High maintenance women like my wife and Dr. Yellen are one of the best things that America does.
3.
1. P. Obama should have stuck with Larry Summers, the way he wanted to.
2. You didn't like my try at a joke because you are a very politically- correct guy.
3. High maintenance women like my wife and Dr. Yellen are one of the best things that America does.
3.
1
I wonder: Do you commonly decry " high-maintenance men"? Or put remote public figures or celebrities who are male on equal par with them men closest to you in life?
3
Quick, close your eyes and imagine an interior decorator. Now ignore that image completely and refer to the decorator as “he or she.” Its about time we do this consistently across all occupations.
2
I don't think the author is saying that there are no fields associated more with women -- though, honestly, in your example, the stereotype for many is a gay male. Nurse, administrative assistant, child care provider are all associated with women as well. What he is saying is that high-powered, non-nurturing fields are most often associated with men. Used to be "Doctor," as in M.D., was associated with men. Now, if you picture a pediatrician you might think of a woman, but how about a renowned neurosurgeon?
2
I wonder how Dr. Romer and Dr. Romer deal with this issue.
2
Let's see how well Stephanie Kelton gets on in the "respect" league. She has my respect over just about any of the Swedish "Nobel Prizes" awarded to men. These Nobel Prizes are notorious for being used to support flawed economic doctrine and are picked out by practitioners of flawed economic doctrine.
They are losing respect and Norway should insist they be shut down. They are an embarrassment to real Nobel Prizes for the hard sciences, plus Peace. Economics is far from a hard science. It's more often referred to as a "sort of religion" even by economists/
So I don't think the females are really losing out. They are avoiding a slur.
They are losing respect and Norway should insist they be shut down. They are an embarrassment to real Nobel Prizes for the hard sciences, plus Peace. Economics is far from a hard science. It's more often referred to as a "sort of religion" even by economists/
So I don't think the females are really losing out. They are avoiding a slur.
2
Why would Norway have an opinion?
2
Harold Hardrada?
1
Well if economists could assist our society they would earn my respect. Since almost none can my respect is vanishingly small.
1
I don't doubt for even one second that the subconscious discrimination against the women. For journalists and economists who should know better the importance in the author ranking from published papers, the oversight to demote the female first authors is too glaring a mistake to ignore.
The case that I find more repugnant, is the totally condescending tone of Nader toward Yellen, directly (he's not even implying!) calling her out to have a sit-down with the man-in-the-house, no doubt the one presumed to be the "adult" in the household to put Yellen in line, according to Nader's ethos. That kind of attitude is so last-century, if not more ancient. Nader seriously needs some spanking from his mom behind closed doors.
The case that I find more repugnant, is the totally condescending tone of Nader toward Yellen, directly (he's not even implying!) calling her out to have a sit-down with the man-in-the-house, no doubt the one presumed to be the "adult" in the household to put Yellen in line, according to Nader's ethos. That kind of attitude is so last-century, if not more ancient. Nader seriously needs some spanking from his mom behind closed doors.
18
As a woman currently applying for my PhD in economics, I was acutely aware of this issue last week when it came to the Case-Deaton study. Hearing a female academic described primarily as someone's wife in the context of media coverage on her very own research was very disturbing. Thanks to the NYTimes & Betsey Stevenson’s husband for discussing this trend. (Kudos to user “whatever” on that joke.)
However, it is worth further investigating the mechanism behind this trend, as I believe it is more profound than careless mistakes made by the media. I would argue that media outlets follow understandable incentives in how they report on stories. They focus on the actors (researchers, in the case of academic studies) with whom readers are most likely to be familiar. This then disproportionately discounts female researchers since male researchers tend to be the "bigger names" in the public realm. Due to this shortcoming, the media should standardize how they report on academic results in order to give all authors their just deserts (rather than just focusing on the most famous of the co-authors). Standardization in this area would help to acknowledge the contributions of a wider set of diverse researchers, but also to create academic environments with more mobility. Mobility within academic structures is desperately needed in order to avoid a "rich get richer" (in terms of academic reputation) structure that disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups.
However, it is worth further investigating the mechanism behind this trend, as I believe it is more profound than careless mistakes made by the media. I would argue that media outlets follow understandable incentives in how they report on stories. They focus on the actors (researchers, in the case of academic studies) with whom readers are most likely to be familiar. This then disproportionately discounts female researchers since male researchers tend to be the "bigger names" in the public realm. Due to this shortcoming, the media should standardize how they report on academic results in order to give all authors their just deserts (rather than just focusing on the most famous of the co-authors). Standardization in this area would help to acknowledge the contributions of a wider set of diverse researchers, but also to create academic environments with more mobility. Mobility within academic structures is desperately needed in order to avoid a "rich get richer" (in terms of academic reputation) structure that disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups.
25
Nicholas Kristof (aka Mr. Sheryl WuDunn) made the same joke earlier on Twitter.
Kristof: "Terrific piece on journalists routinely downplaying the role of women economists, by @BetseyStevenson's partner http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/even-famous-female-economists-g... …"
Wolters; "@BetseyStevenson Now I know what it feels like, Mr @WuDunn..."
https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/664558786988924928
Kristof: "Terrific piece on journalists routinely downplaying the role of women economists, by @BetseyStevenson's partner http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/even-famous-female-economists-g... …"
Wolters; "@BetseyStevenson Now I know what it feels like, Mr @WuDunn..."
https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/664558786988924928
5
Journalists, even at the NYT, are capable of sexism. Your readers aren't surprised.
14
Thank you so very very much for this very wonderful article.
In the 80's, I had the opportunity to hear a woman engineer speak about her experiences working in industry. One story stood out:
She noted that her ideas were ignored at their design meetings, but when a man presented basically the same idea 5 - 10 minutes later, the idea was now well regarded. She charted this and convinced, she presented her findings to the group. They vehemently denied it, but she couldn't prove it to them anymore because now her ideas were heard. The important conclusion for her was that, even if the men denied their sexism, they could change their behaviour!
My 17 year old daughter is now in high school and complains that one of the boys at her AP calculus table group dismisses her work. He says things like: 'Wow! You got that right!' as if he didn't believe in her. In her physics class there are three boys at her table group. Two boys are good friends and talk to the third boy but ignore her. The third boy talks with everyone. About the two she says 'It's as if I don't exist'. I suggest she point this out to them, watch them deny it, and expect their behavior to change.
Beyond, high school table groups, denied raises, promotions and opportunities, there are tragic cases where women are not heard.
Mr. Wolfers, you and Hannibal Buress rock!!
Thank you for this wonderful and important article.
In the 80's, I had the opportunity to hear a woman engineer speak about her experiences working in industry. One story stood out:
She noted that her ideas were ignored at their design meetings, but when a man presented basically the same idea 5 - 10 minutes later, the idea was now well regarded. She charted this and convinced, she presented her findings to the group. They vehemently denied it, but she couldn't prove it to them anymore because now her ideas were heard. The important conclusion for her was that, even if the men denied their sexism, they could change their behaviour!
My 17 year old daughter is now in high school and complains that one of the boys at her AP calculus table group dismisses her work. He says things like: 'Wow! You got that right!' as if he didn't believe in her. In her physics class there are three boys at her table group. Two boys are good friends and talk to the third boy but ignore her. The third boy talks with everyone. About the two she says 'It's as if I don't exist'. I suggest she point this out to them, watch them deny it, and expect their behavior to change.
Beyond, high school table groups, denied raises, promotions and opportunities, there are tragic cases where women are not heard.
Mr. Wolfers, you and Hannibal Buress rock!!
Thank you for this wonderful and important article.
26
I found this to be true, too. It's been studied and well-documented since at least the sixties or seventies. It's a real shame that, even after over forty years, we're still fighting this war, which means that drawing it to their attention and waiting for them to fix their behavior is, at best, a temporary fix.
5
That's right. It's why I don't worry too much when people deny that they're ignoring, obstructing, or talking over me. They can deny all they want. They'll still stop.
1
The plural of anecdote is not data.
1
And yet, fabulously (or not), this exact experience of misremembering and misattributing credit in ways that favor men has been borne out by social scientific evidence.
9
Paul Krugman is married to an accomplished economist, Robin Wells, a past faculty member at MIT, Stanford, and Princeton, so he may well hear something at home about his faux pas ;-)
20
Fact of the matter remains, that media would report on tidbits from Krugman, but if it's from Wells, it would suffix to say, "researcher, wife of the accomplished Krugman." Very sad.
5
I never finished my PhD so that probably explains why I don't understand the author's pique. Is it required to mention a woman's entire CV, even when she is not the subject of the sentence? Is this requirement specific to the female gender? "Co-authored" seems to have been the ideal and eminently fair and PC description for Laurence Katz. Barking up the wrong tree, methinks.
1
I disagree! Gender bias is not fair.
5
Who's the first author and who's the second author is indeed very important -- that's the issue. When I was in the academic life I wrote a paper with two other researchers where we chose whose name would go first because the guy was up for tenure. And in the last paper I co-authored, I told the lead author I would be content not to be an author at all, because he was up for tenure (he did more than I did, anyway, and I was retired).
You had better believe that promotions committees, search committees, deans and provosts and presidents pay close attention to who's listed as the first author.
You had better believe that promotions committees, search committees, deans and provosts and presidents pay close attention to who's listed as the first author.
35
First, I can't understand this phenomenon of downgrading female coauthors except as pure thoughtless bias -- but how can any respectable academic these days be so unaware of gender bias? They should be ashamed.
In mathematics the normal order of authors is strictly alphabetical, except in some countries, especially China, where the custom is variable (after all, what is alphabetical order in Chinese?). We do not have "first authors" or "corresponding authors" in any systematic way (other than alphabetical order).
I recommend the link, given in the article, to "The ordering of authors’ names in academic publications", http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/the-ordering-of-authors%E2%80%99-n...
Most of it is about economics and doesn't apply to math, but I was interested to see the practice in an exotic field.
In mathematics the normal order of authors is strictly alphabetical, except in some countries, especially China, where the custom is variable (after all, what is alphabetical order in Chinese?). We do not have "first authors" or "corresponding authors" in any systematic way (other than alphabetical order).
I recommend the link, given in the article, to "The ordering of authors’ names in academic publications", http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/the-ordering-of-authors%E2%80%99-n...
Most of it is about economics and doesn't apply to math, but I was interested to see the practice in an exotic field.
6
No one has discussed the fact that the two papers cited in this article are written by a husband and wife. In both cases the journalists referred to the man first. While this may or may not have been gender discrimination ( it's not completely clear who of the two is the leading academic) doesn't the fact the articles are written by a man and a woman who are in a sexual relationship, have some root in gender and sex too. It is arguably a different form of gender discrimination.
1
If you read the first page of the papers you see the women wrote the papers with contributions from the second author. Their relationship is beside the point.
15
You totally miss the point. Lead author is the one doing the most work or has most contribution. It's the work that counts, hence the credit should be due to. It matters not whether they are in any form of relationship, sexual or otherwise.
10
In the physical sciences, it is common practice to put the students first in the list of authors, and the professor last. I do so, as do all my colleagues.
Apparently, economists are different.
Apparently, economists are different.
5
Yes economists are different ... as are mathematicians and scholars in many other disciplines. The ordering of names means different things in different disciplines. In economics it is 90% (or more) alphabetical. Indeed, when the ordering of names is not alphabetical that conveys a very clear message that something unusual was going on.
9
Great piece! One quibble: in Economics the common practice is to list author last names in alphabetical order, when equal effort has gone into producing the work. So, Case & Deaton; Goldin & Katz; Stevenson & Wolfers works to put women as first author, but if this rule put women second, it would not mean that they were the secondary contributor.
2
I've enjoyed several sharp articles by Dr. Akerlof, but in my many years as an Economist never came across one by Dr. Yellen.
And isn't it the case that Dr. Yellen has mostly worked at business schools (UC-B). In my day the ones who couldn't hack it or get tenured in the Econ Dept. ended up in the Business school.
It may be partly due to specialization. How many female macro-economists are there? The ones I knew migrated to micro, especially related to the economics of the family.
And isn't it the case that Dr. Yellen has mostly worked at business schools (UC-B). In my day the ones who couldn't hack it or get tenured in the Econ Dept. ended up in the Business school.
It may be partly due to specialization. How many female macro-economists are there? The ones I knew migrated to micro, especially related to the economics of the family.
Yellen's specialties are unemployment, fiscal policy, and monetary policy. And here is her UCB faculty bio, with a partial list of her publications:
http://facultybio.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty-list/yellen-janet
Perhaps you have missed her publications because you have a different specialty?
http://facultybio.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty-list/yellen-janet
Perhaps you have missed her publications because you have a different specialty?
11
It sounds like you have some serious selection bias. But your own personal reading habits are not a basis for assessing the impact of the scholarship and policy making of Janet Yellen, Anne Case, George Akerlof, or anyone else.
9
I'm a male academic, and I've been married to two female academics. (Um, consecutively, not concurrently!) I've done research with each of them. And I agree with Professor Deaton when he stated "I think it is real enough." In fact, I have always insisted that these coauthors' names be listed first, as it is extra difficult for women to get the recognition they are due.
27
I'm unsure how academic economics works but papers in mathematics list authors alphabetically. So the fact that Prof. Goldin was the first listed author on her co-publication with Prof. Katz might well mean exactly nothing. That said, the attribution in the NYT was ridiculous in not giving her her due.
7
Given the recent cant in NYT editorials, I'm disappointed not so see included in this article a note about the degree of respect accorded to male economists who identify as female.
Last week, Glamour magazine gave it's greatest measure of respect (Glamour's "Woman of the Year") to a man who identifies as a woman.
One wonders what ACTUAL women must accomplish in order to be worthy of respect?
Last week, Glamour magazine gave it's greatest measure of respect (Glamour's "Woman of the Year") to a man who identifies as a woman.
One wonders what ACTUAL women must accomplish in order to be worthy of respect?
12
i am so glad after reading this article Mr. Justin Wolfers. and i agree with your wife Betsey Stevenson. the leading feminists in every field do not really acknowledge the potentials of individuals from same gender. i won't say it happens everywhere, but it does and so much so that we cannot really defy or ignore it. and to write about it publicly is a positive step towards this slight partiality.
8
This only indicates that the pendulum has swung too far, instead of coming to a dead stop in the middle and I guess, it is payback time now. Today's classrooms are extremely unfriendly to the young boys and males. While boys drop out in droves, the girls dominate the universities in all fields, even in the ones where men are thought to have a natural edge. This just cannot happen if men and women are of equal intelligence. It is not very different in job interviews and political candidacies. The desire to be politically correct is just overwhelming. A woman has to do extremely poor in order not to succeed. A generation of males are paying the price now for the absence of awakening to the reality of equality that might have prevailed in the previous centuries. Equity between individuals has been irreversibly and irrevocably replaced by affirmative action towards on group. Doesn't it sound like feudal justice system that says if the father has committed an offence, the son has to be punished too. It is this poisonous atmosphere which deprives many deserving men of their rightful opportunities at the very bottom, naturally hurts at the very top when a man thinks some sort of affirmative action has been at play when a brilliant or respectable woman achieves what is rightfully hers.
2
Indeed. These are problems much more urgent than the ones in this article ( although also important).
But the fact remains that we fail an entire generation of young men and their struggles go unheard because of the more introverted nature of males.
But the fact remains that we fail an entire generation of young men and their struggles go unheard because of the more introverted nature of males.
1
Huh? Women are not taking men's "rightful opportunities" because men don't and didn't own those opportunities to begin with. Now they have to compete for those opportunities with peers that include women. Historically there was never equity among individuals. Men just assumed they owned the field and were free to exclude others. Now they can no longer make that assumption.
5
@ Theiventhiran Kanthia, Canada
@ Maarten Debacker, Belgium
I am a middle-aged white male professional whose career has taken me throughout the United States and into frequent encounters with education system and the high-education system and I do not recognize AT ALL the world you are describing. Perhaps it is thus in Canada and Belgium, but here in the States such a description is like the vision of a young person on hallucinogenic drugs who has stumbled into a Mardi Gras themed party held in the mirrored hall of a sideshow funhouse. Fascinating and grotesque, but completely irrelevant to reality.
@ Maarten Debacker, Belgium
I am a middle-aged white male professional whose career has taken me throughout the United States and into frequent encounters with education system and the high-education system and I do not recognize AT ALL the world you are describing. Perhaps it is thus in Canada and Belgium, but here in the States such a description is like the vision of a young person on hallucinogenic drugs who has stumbled into a Mardi Gras themed party held in the mirrored hall of a sideshow funhouse. Fascinating and grotesque, but completely irrelevant to reality.
2
Yes! And imagine how much more complicated this becomes when we factor race and ethnicity in the matter. And to make matters more interesting, what about the voices of pluralistic economic thought!
4
This is a great article. Thanks, Betsey's husband!
85
...whatshisname.
Makes you wonder--if in this day and age, the editors and several high-performing columnists at three well resourced publications and an ostensibly gender-conscious, commentator at an intellectually ambitious website/podsite (Hannah's husband) can all snub these distinguished women--what other mishegoss is still going on to undervalue the achievements of female academics and professionals. And I have seen worse.
Makes you wonder--if in this day and age, the editors and several high-performing columnists at three well resourced publications and an ostensibly gender-conscious, commentator at an intellectually ambitious website/podsite (Hannah's husband) can all snub these distinguished women--what other mishegoss is still going on to undervalue the achievements of female academics and professionals. And I have seen worse.
2
To be fair--you left out Yellen's husband is a Laureate in economics. That changes the context rather significantly.
Well,mules, actually the article did mention "Nobel Prize" from which we can conclude "Laureate" and followed up by explaining the irrelevance of that standing in regards to setting economic monetary policy, a field in which the husband has no standing.
27
No standing? I don't have any degree in setting economic monetary policy but as a citizen and voter I have "standing", probably better standing than these academics since I much better understand and accept their limitations.
"Go ask your husband" is a slight.
Seems to be at root an issue for academia, which has remained blissfully ignorant, in the professorial ranks, of the fact that women can and do achieve feats hitherto unimaginable (by male profs, for example). The sexism is arguably worse in business schools, and thus the cycle perpetuates itself. But the worst thing women can do is give up.
15
Of course it's real. Institutionalised sexism is very real, very harmful and damned well - apparently - impossible to remedy. From the day I learnt that Bowdoin College was selecting a young male ABD whose specialisation was entirely different from the one the position required rather than me - with a PhD, a post-doctoral fellowship and a forthcoming book in the exact specialisation - because he was sure to get along better with the other faculty, I've seen sexism form the essential core of academia. That this institutionalisation is now so routine that we are expected to be surprised that it exists and amazed that it affects real people doing real things speaks volumes.
65
Unfortunately, as any woman working in the business world knows, much of the worst sexism women will be subject to will come from other women, especially female bosses.
Their unconscious bias is obvious in any staff meeting where, with the exception of the female boss, men are allowed to speak for much longer than women. My coworkers and I have actually timed this. Men=9-10 minutes on a subject, women=3 minutes maximum, before the boss will interrupt and insist we 'move along'.
That is not even including the fact that women's opinions are dismissed, unless 'seconded' by a man. Or that credit for a 'job well done' will be given to a man, even when he had little to do with the project. (In one situation that happened to me, the man himself protested he had nothing to do with my project. Boss response? 'Let's move along'.).
It is so prevalent that, like many other women, I enlist the help of my male coworkers to 'second' my opinions before meetings, because there is no other way to get the work done.
It has been much easier for me to deal with male sexist attitudes than female, as most men are quite comfortable with being called out on their behavior in a polite but straightforward manner, where most women simply deny it and nothing changes.
Their unconscious bias is obvious in any staff meeting where, with the exception of the female boss, men are allowed to speak for much longer than women. My coworkers and I have actually timed this. Men=9-10 minutes on a subject, women=3 minutes maximum, before the boss will interrupt and insist we 'move along'.
That is not even including the fact that women's opinions are dismissed, unless 'seconded' by a man. Or that credit for a 'job well done' will be given to a man, even when he had little to do with the project. (In one situation that happened to me, the man himself protested he had nothing to do with my project. Boss response? 'Let's move along'.).
It is so prevalent that, like many other women, I enlist the help of my male coworkers to 'second' my opinions before meetings, because there is no other way to get the work done.
It has been much easier for me to deal with male sexist attitudes than female, as most men are quite comfortable with being called out on their behavior in a polite but straightforward manner, where most women simply deny it and nothing changes.
45
This type of female boss - who is usually from the generation (born in the 1950s) where she had to claw her way to the top - is operating from a stew of internalized sexism mixed with near insane levels of competitive envy directed at younger, less powerful women. A thoroughly depressing dynamic.
14
It is depressing, but sadly, one woman was a Boomer, one a Gen Xer, and one a Millennial.
I was startling to see that even the youngest of the women automatically give all of the men in a meeting respect.
So it goes...
I was startling to see that even the youngest of the women automatically give all of the men in a meeting respect.
So it goes...
6
This bias is pervasive. My example is a bit off topic and perhaps trivial in the scheme of things. I had bought a house and when I got married 10 years later I added my husband's name on the title. Now he gets listed first in our property, insurance and tax records
47
Another slightly off-topic remark: have you noticed how often when a photograph of a man and a woman has a caption, the man's name comes first? Even if the photo was taken because she's done something heroic, and the photographer happened to decide to include her husband. It's not "Jane Jones, shown her standing beside her husband, John," but "John and Jane Jones"--even if she's on the left and he's on the right.
18
I noticed this when the original piece was published. That photo! I found it upsetting. Anne Case is beaming at her husband, and while it's interpersonally a lovely expression between a wife and her husband, it's sociologically troubling. We'll never know if Case's expression and body placement (off to the side, gazing at Deaton) is simply one moment in time that is elevated to narrative by a photographer and the editors at the Times -- or whether that's how Case "orients" herself to her husband in some kind of larger way. It's an interesting question, though, and I'm glad the Times published this piece.
16
And notice that she is not looking at her husband in the photo, as well. Instead she is looking at someone across the hall from her, whose head is cut out of the photo. But what got me was, there is a young girl in the photo, standing to the right, next to Anne Case--and she is not looking at her at all, but gazing with delight in her eyes at Mr. Deaton instead, with not a glance for the woman economist who she might want to emulate. I hope she is a relative, instead of a student.
2
Writers routinely define women and girls in relationship to men - it's always man plus wife plus children, never woman plus husband plus children, unless it's specifically a story about the woman.
At least the writers didn't make mention of the color of the women's hair. If you really want to make yourself crazy, start noticing how often a woman or girl's hair color is mentioned, as opposed to a man or boy's. It's as if, I don't know, somehow feminine appearance is important, where masculine appearance is not.
At least the writers didn't make mention of the color of the women's hair. If you really want to make yourself crazy, start noticing how often a woman or girl's hair color is mentioned, as opposed to a man or boy's. It's as if, I don't know, somehow feminine appearance is important, where masculine appearance is not.
55
Ah, yes. In my generation women were universally defined as "petite, blonde/brunette/redhead mother of 1/2/3+."
12
Nader's letter did not confuse me. The Fed is giving endless free money to the banks which they lend out to make far more money than comes from the CDs they offer us rubes.
3
Thank you.
25
It's time to recall the wise voicest around the collapse of the derivative pyramid scheme & subprime MBs in 2008:
Sheila Bair
Elizabeth Warren
Brooksley Born
If men tend to confuse risk with power, then maybe there is safety in a stable gender in leadership. (PMS stops after menopause!)
Sheila Bair
Elizabeth Warren
Brooksley Born
If men tend to confuse risk with power, then maybe there is safety in a stable gender in leadership. (PMS stops after menopause!)
9
Please tell me you didn't just reference hormones in this. I just read it again and, indeed, you've just reinforced a stereotype of irrational hormonal women.
29
Agreed, SD. Also, sex, not gender (the latter is just stereotypes).
4
Excellent point. Too bad you undercut it with the reference to PMS.
3
I think this is fine as a lighthearted jeu d'esprit, but it doesn't seem to be a serious attempt explain the pattern observed here.
Indeed Professor Wolfers tipped us off as to what is really going on when he admitted "[t]his may reflect the journalistic tendency to follow the more exciting narrative."
Closer inspection of the Wolfers' sample shows that a more plausible explanation for the differential treatment is not gender or even the economist's status in the profession (which is an insider thing), but rather celebrity. The obvious exception is Janet Yellen who is obviously a rock star. But she proves the rule -- after all, Nader wrote to her, not to her husband.
Surely the point is that, given readers' short attention spans, a well-established strategy for maximizing eyeballs is for the author to hitch the story to some household name. Merit or actual authorship are beside the point.
The same pattern is evident elsewhere. Activist NGOs live and die by the publicity they garner. So they attack the (labor, environmental, pricing, etc.) practices of the companies with the best-known brands, not the worst records.
I may be belaboring the obvious. But, even if it is lighthearted, I fear this piece feeds the animals who endlessly propagate the idea that we are all in the thrall of unconscious sexism and racism.
Indeed Professor Wolfers tipped us off as to what is really going on when he admitted "[t]his may reflect the journalistic tendency to follow the more exciting narrative."
Closer inspection of the Wolfers' sample shows that a more plausible explanation for the differential treatment is not gender or even the economist's status in the profession (which is an insider thing), but rather celebrity. The obvious exception is Janet Yellen who is obviously a rock star. But she proves the rule -- after all, Nader wrote to her, not to her husband.
Surely the point is that, given readers' short attention spans, a well-established strategy for maximizing eyeballs is for the author to hitch the story to some household name. Merit or actual authorship are beside the point.
The same pattern is evident elsewhere. Activist NGOs live and die by the publicity they garner. So they attack the (labor, environmental, pricing, etc.) practices of the companies with the best-known brands, not the worst records.
I may be belaboring the obvious. But, even if it is lighthearted, I fear this piece feeds the animals who endlessly propagate the idea that we are all in the thrall of unconscious sexism and racism.
A thinker who distinguishes well is entitled to his own distinctions. Professor Maitland erred, perhaps, identifying the sure point as strategy for maximizing eyeballs. He was welcome to think that but might have better persuaded by characterizing his fancy as a point and not as the point. Professor Wolfers is after all a thinker, not a professor in a department of communications.
Ian Maitland suggests that the focus on men is not due to gender but to "celebrity."
How can celebrity land on women when they're routinely minimized in articles, even in the NYT?
That reminds me of the elementary school teacher who explained that I couldn't be sent to retrieve the ball that had gone over the playground fence, because "You've never done that, and Johnny has!"
How can celebrity land on women when they're routinely minimized in articles, even in the NYT?
That reminds me of the elementary school teacher who explained that I couldn't be sent to retrieve the ball that had gone over the playground fence, because "You've never done that, and Johnny has!"
21
M. L. Chadwick:
The point of my comment was that more careful consideration shows that it is an economist's celebrity rather than their sex that drives press coverage.
If that is right -- as you seem to grant, at least for the sake of argument -- then Wolfers' conjecture that women are routinely minimized in articles ("even in the NYT") is false.
But if women are not "minimized in articles", then that cannot be what is preventing them from achieving celebrity.
The point of my comment was that more careful consideration shows that it is an economist's celebrity rather than their sex that drives press coverage.
If that is right -- as you seem to grant, at least for the sake of argument -- then Wolfers' conjecture that women are routinely minimized in articles ("even in the NYT") is false.
But if women are not "minimized in articles", then that cannot be what is preventing them from achieving celebrity.
The good news is that Carmen Reinhart gets first billing for the disastrous "Growth in a Time of Debt"
2
I applaud the nytimes for bringing attention to this.
At the same time -- and I may be nitpicking -- I rather resent the fact that the author turned to the husbands to confirm that there is indeed unequal treatment. This can probably be chalked up to a journalistic urge to always verify with multiple sources, but it reminds me too much of the people who doubt that I experience bias as a woman in engineering and face frequent microagressions for my perceived ethnicity.
Incidentally, the people who doubt me are the same people who email me articles like this. Apparently they believe journalists are a more reputable source than I am.
But I'm still glad they ran this piece. Thanks!
At the same time -- and I may be nitpicking -- I rather resent the fact that the author turned to the husbands to confirm that there is indeed unequal treatment. This can probably be chalked up to a journalistic urge to always verify with multiple sources, but it reminds me too much of the people who doubt that I experience bias as a woman in engineering and face frequent microagressions for my perceived ethnicity.
Incidentally, the people who doubt me are the same people who email me articles like this. Apparently they believe journalists are a more reputable source than I am.
But I'm still glad they ran this piece. Thanks!
49
I agree with Alex. And also find the reference to Slaughter ridiculous. He seems to be saying "well even if feminists get it wrong, the whole thing is hopeless ha ha." But the other implication is that Slaughter is the worst offender. (Partially because she is placed last, the traditional spot for the most damning evidence).
2
I expect that, having already found strong evidence of these women being slighted, he contacted the husbands not to verify that their wives had indeed been slighted, but rather to see if these men could provide instances where they had been. Since they could not, the author was able to support his conclusion that this phenomenon affects women more than men.
1
I just don't follow this. Last is not the traditional place for most damning example in a collection of this sort and he in no at suggested Slaughter was the worst offender - he implied that she should know better, which is way fair.
It seems to me that you are being defensive about Slaughter for some reason. She fumbled this one.
It seems to me that you are being defensive about Slaughter for some reason. She fumbled this one.
1
Thank you so much for writing this. I was offended when I read these NYT articles and saw these women described as wives, rather than professors or experts. Editors should be more vigilant of this persistent cultural tic, on the part of both men and woman, to diminish the contributions of accomplished women, and reward them with less recognition.
138
I see these subtle biases when watching my girlfriend interact with her peers and others. She is a well-respected economist at a prominent SoCal university. However, I am a bit puzzled by the examples of author name ordering Wolfers uses here. Unlike many fields, economists traditionally list their names alphabetically on papers, no matter the relative contribution of the author. Unless they wished to signal something unusual, Claudia Goldin will always be the first author on papers she writes with her husband, Lawrence Katz, as G comes before K in the alphabet. Similarly, on the papers that Wolfers writes with Stevenson, his partner, Stevenson will come first, whether or not he was the primary contributor.
2
But what about Drs. Case and Deaton? I read the NYT article about white mortality rates and assumed he drove the work, not she, from the fact that she was described as a co-author and "wife." Pretty bad of me - but also the reporter.
28
Yes, the Case/Deaton example is more salient to Wolfer's point, though even there one can point to similar non-gendered examples. When Jean Tirole won his Nobel in 2014, the significant contributions of Harvard's Drew Fudenberg, his frequent co-author, disappeared in news accounts.
4
Uhm, referring to one's spouse as "my better half" is both condescending and demeaning. I recommend that you send her some flowers before you go home tonight (yes, I'm being ironic). I co-wrote a law review article with my (former) wife, and I'll admit to a certain sexism in the way I viewed our roles (my defense is that it was over 30 years ago): my role was to come up with the ideas and hers was to find the law that supported my ideas. I'll be the first to admit that she is much smarter than I: she worked as a lawyer for only a few years and moved on, whereas I continue to toil away, over 40 years now.
7
I agree.
Now - how about changing the photo in this article to one where Anne Case is in the center, Angus Deaton is on the side, and the caption says "Anne Case and Angus Deaton, wife and husband, and prominent economists."
Thanks.
Now - how about changing the photo in this article to one where Anne Case is in the center, Angus Deaton is on the side, and the caption says "Anne Case and Angus Deaton, wife and husband, and prominent economists."
Thanks.
91
Um, I think the photo is meant to illustrate the problem...
7
I first heard about the research of Case and Deaton on the PBS NewsHour, and as I recall, Ms. Case was interviewed and Mr. Deaton mentioned in passing at the end. Is it a coincidence that the NewsHour is lead by two women? I don't think so.
42
It's also relevant that the PBS NewsHour started out hosted by two males, McNeill and Lehrer. Now hosted by Lehrer alone, not Lehrer and Woodruff. Not that the NYT would notice such, as they are a bastion of male privilege themselves.
2
A good and revealing article, well researched.
But, leaving aside the main thesis for a moment, how can any economist feel 'confident', as the author says? With its dismal record of predicting crashes, recessions, depressions and near-depressions, it is closer to a pseudo-science than a science. It adjusts itself after every large event as Keynes and his rivals advance and recede in influence, much like a passel of medieval doctors brought in to try to save a dying king: One says let's try this, another says let's try that. Does this kind of a discipline inspire real confidence in anyone, or only foolish confidence? This wiser path, it seems to me, would be humility all around rather than confidence.
But, leaving aside the main thesis for a moment, how can any economist feel 'confident', as the author says? With its dismal record of predicting crashes, recessions, depressions and near-depressions, it is closer to a pseudo-science than a science. It adjusts itself after every large event as Keynes and his rivals advance and recede in influence, much like a passel of medieval doctors brought in to try to save a dying king: One says let's try this, another says let's try that. Does this kind of a discipline inspire real confidence in anyone, or only foolish confidence? This wiser path, it seems to me, would be humility all around rather than confidence.
4
Wonderful article, thank you. And the writer is a man! Maybe readers will even pay attention.
28
Nice work, Mr. Wolfers. We appreciate your work on our behalf.
It is a long, slow road. I had the same uninformed reaction to the original article about the Goldin/Katz article in the NYTimes. Very pleased to have my instincts validated and the issue made public for my eduction. And the apology by Mr. Davidson is appropriate. Your expansion and presentation of the issue here is even better.
It is a long, slow road. I had the same uninformed reaction to the original article about the Goldin/Katz article in the NYTimes. Very pleased to have my instincts validated and the issue made public for my eduction. And the apology by Mr. Davidson is appropriate. Your expansion and presentation of the issue here is even better.
33
Disheartening but not surprising. Some people will argue that this is all a tempest in a teapot, but I believe that it is a symbol of how deeply rooted gender bias/discrimination is in our society that it turns up in even these kinds of small ways. Sexism--it is alive and well.
34
Here's my account to the Public Editor regarding another NYT slight:
I had hoped that another reader would have contacted you about this, or that a female business editor might have been more sensitive to the implications of the article as written and corrected it, but it is evident that I must be the one to ask you to do so.
Each time I visit the NYT Syngenta A.G. Company News, I am greeted by an article, first published 6/20/13, presumably in print and now apparently in perpetuity on the web, entitled "Executive at Monsanto Wins Global Food Honor". The problem is that Dr. Robert Fraley, the Monsanto winner, shared the prize with Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton of Syngenta and Dr. Marc Van Montagu, yet he and his employer are not only more prominently mentioned in the article, but are the only honoree and company mentioned in the headline that appears on the web page reserved for news about Syngenta, one of Monsanto's corporate rivals. The World Food Prize Foundation awarded the prize to these three persons as equals, but the author of the article seems to have decided that Dr. Fraley stands head and shoulders above the others. To minimize their contributions seems patently unfair, and, in the case of Dr. Chilton, sexist. Won't you please change the article's headline on the Syngenta page so that, at least on the Times web page about her own employer, Dr. Chilton may get the recognition she deserves?
The Public Editor forwarded my request to the NYT Business desk, but to no avail.
I had hoped that another reader would have contacted you about this, or that a female business editor might have been more sensitive to the implications of the article as written and corrected it, but it is evident that I must be the one to ask you to do so.
Each time I visit the NYT Syngenta A.G. Company News, I am greeted by an article, first published 6/20/13, presumably in print and now apparently in perpetuity on the web, entitled "Executive at Monsanto Wins Global Food Honor". The problem is that Dr. Robert Fraley, the Monsanto winner, shared the prize with Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton of Syngenta and Dr. Marc Van Montagu, yet he and his employer are not only more prominently mentioned in the article, but are the only honoree and company mentioned in the headline that appears on the web page reserved for news about Syngenta, one of Monsanto's corporate rivals. The World Food Prize Foundation awarded the prize to these three persons as equals, but the author of the article seems to have decided that Dr. Fraley stands head and shoulders above the others. To minimize their contributions seems patently unfair, and, in the case of Dr. Chilton, sexist. Won't you please change the article's headline on the Syngenta page so that, at least on the Times web page about her own employer, Dr. Chilton may get the recognition she deserves?
The Public Editor forwarded my request to the NYT Business desk, but to no avail.
31
Thank you for making this public. While these examples may come as a surprise to male readers, all women spend their careers working within an inherently sexist culture. In spite of barriers, accomplished women in academics continue to do important research and make significant contributions. That says a lot about women and the workplace.
72
I do not think that we yet have a model of "unconscious bias" that is able to differentiate rational, inductive reasoning (which in the present case would motivate using the male researcher's name first) from bona fide bias (whatever that is).
Stereotypes are usually statistically well founded - that's why they function as stereotypes. They offer a compact coding of features of often large and well sampled (by oneself and others) population. Used heuristically to summarize one's experience, they seem benign in fact essential (we do this with all sortal nouns).
This only becomes pernicious and perhaps a case of bias, if such default reasoning and stereotype application becomes constitutive of peoples' judgement.
Of course, one can lobby for a change in linguistic norms to require the use of agnostic phrases and expressions in place of the "natural" defaults and stereotypes - and this has been done in some cases, although I very much doubt that it has affected the underlying psychology significantly.
The writers the author mentions were not themselves writing academic articles targeting members of the academy, rather they were writing for readers of more general publications. I doubt that the academic protocol of credit ordering entered their heads.
Thus is default reasoning apropos. Was this a case of 'unconscious bias" or just natural, unconscious (and benign) use of inductive reasoning? Or maybe there is no real difference and it is all just a matter of politics?
Stereotypes are usually statistically well founded - that's why they function as stereotypes. They offer a compact coding of features of often large and well sampled (by oneself and others) population. Used heuristically to summarize one's experience, they seem benign in fact essential (we do this with all sortal nouns).
This only becomes pernicious and perhaps a case of bias, if such default reasoning and stereotype application becomes constitutive of peoples' judgement.
Of course, one can lobby for a change in linguistic norms to require the use of agnostic phrases and expressions in place of the "natural" defaults and stereotypes - and this has been done in some cases, although I very much doubt that it has affected the underlying psychology significantly.
The writers the author mentions were not themselves writing academic articles targeting members of the academy, rather they were writing for readers of more general publications. I doubt that the academic protocol of credit ordering entered their heads.
Thus is default reasoning apropos. Was this a case of 'unconscious bias" or just natural, unconscious (and benign) use of inductive reasoning? Or maybe there is no real difference and it is all just a matter of politics?
1
By what rational reason does it make sense to systematically list a male author first when he's done less work?
Exactly what stereotype are you trying to defend here?
Exactly what stereotype are you trying to defend here?
46
We women get little respect for most things. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised.
52
Please....as far back as the 1950s and 1960s when I was growing up--most respected endeavor--MOTHER. Most respected occupation--SCHOOLTEACHER. Custody battle over children--no such thing: Children remain with the mother-- father legally responsible for support. Good, bad, I am not debating here. But clearly, in those days, women's roles and occupations were supremely RESPECTED. I might add, in our school, the girls gained the highest respect for demeanor and academic standards.
Certainly, market-based compensation did not reward commensurate to respect--but respect was the topic raised in this comment.
Certainly, market-based compensation did not reward commensurate to respect--but respect was the topic raised in this comment.