This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Janet Crawford dives into the unconscious associations that are often made with regard to gender. It’s hard not to reflect on our own unconscious associations as she talks through how our brain creates associations to help us make sense of the world. Her empowering talk speaks to men and women alike, challenging us all to help create the shift from one of blame to one of action through engagement and curiosity.
Janet Crawford is Principal of Cascadance and Founder of the Women and Innovation Lab. Combining insights from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and experimental psychology, she helps leaders build productive, innovative and collaborative corporate cultures. With two decades of experience coaching and consulting for Fortune 500 companies, her client organizations span the who’s who of Silicon Valley and beyond. Janet holds a Masters from Stanford University and a BA from UC Berkeley.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Second talk with a bathroom line men vs women.
We are excruciatingly over privledged if thats where "brilliant Ted talk minds" are at...weak and frankly, underexperienced speakers and these are professors in our higher education. I took off after freshman year for the real world experiences, speaking 2 foreign languages, no net, just going to cultures around the globe living among and working among them, who aren't like here. Here is a 250 year old republic, and limited by the easy life. No one leaves lights on, or buys food in huge frozen quantities in other cultures. They have tiny refrigerators and buy or grow and pick fresh daily. The places I saw had toilets in the ground, but it wasn't a low standard and they live within their thousands of years old cultures. So buyer beware, the TED talks by virtue of the volume of suddenly new expert voices in the lime light are thin. Maybe its per the risk taking level. Professor, tenure, comfy, cushy academia where no scary competing for your next meal goes on. Its a public paycheck, the Govt cheese. Its fine to learn some fact based subjects in school.
But a large % of profs are egodriven and insecure, they lack in depth and real world experience.
Is it men's fault there are only 18% female congressmen? Women could vote them in but don't. And if women don't like their CEO representation in corporations, then start your own. Oh wait...you're really not that interested in doing that.
It's unethical to eliminate the pay gap; not between genders, but between skill and dedication levels. More men are willing to sacrifice everything to be a CEO. Many others are not, and more so women than men. It's just natural selection.
funny how i knew this video would be about sexism just from the thumbnail. seems like all that female TED talkers can come up with these days is more whinging about sexism with no offering of solution.
"Neuroscience is a relatively young, exciting, and fundamentally interdisciplinary field devoted to the study of the nervous systems. Problems range from investigation of the evolution of nervous system in basal vertebrates to the application of neuroscience to education and law. Neuroscientists also seek to develop neurologically plausible models of human thinking, affect and behavior.Neuroscience creates a context for scholarly conversation about the nature of mind, brain, and behavior." - University of Notre Dame
This video shows that clearly.
Gender deals with human behaviors with regards social expectations.
In my opinion, we can solve this boring gender issue. How? it is all about love man (the hippies got it hhaha).
In more practical terms, it is respecting others to be who they are, and what they want to do with their own lives. (a virtue that is rapidly diminishing in our societies). The problem is fear. It is fear of anything out of the norm, fear of change, fear of diversities, fear of differences, fear of losing our identity, fear of growing power (other than one's own), fear of loss of authority to women? (last one was a hunch)
I would like people to accept and respect me for my choices as i do respect them for being them. Those that don't, should watch out hahaha.
I will leave you with some wise words:
You know that term "the world is not fair or nothing is fair in this world?" Well, MAKE IT FAIR THEN, (that's not my answer, that's the grumbling of my six year old brother when i tell him he can't have what other kids have). Learn from our young, they see no limits.
Also few to no women: mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, welders, electricians, etc. Gee, why? Cause were NOT equal. As someone else mentioned, men and women excel in different areas. Get over it ladies.
She conflates the word 'influence' with the word 'bias'.
The classroom example is not a 'bias' but merely an influence. Bias has the implication of an agency of discrimination; not a passive presence e.g. having a 'garden city' is not a bias to make people vegetarians or gardeners.
In preschool 98% of teachers are women - the hand that rocks the cradle... so the example about the "classroom setting" starts AGAINST men even before the start of schooling - as the classrooms start out being decorated and dominated by women. Going on through school over 75% of all classroom situations are dominated by women... it is boys that are dropping out of education and society in general due to the unconscious bias described - by women.
"in this case, fortune magazine told us necessary that melissa mayer is the real deal because as a blonde attractive young woman we might assume she wasn't".
this. or, maybe, she was hired to turn a company around and she only just managed to sell the company to be dismembered and give a profit to stock holders. having acquired yahoo stocks around the time she was hired, and having sold the remainder of the company with a good profit some years later, i would personally vouch for the second: many a times it looked like i had thrown the money down the flush. and, rest assured, the doubts and the hard looks at the company actions weren't aired because mayer was a "blonde attractive young woman". i had fca, too, and i can assure you things were *much* harder for marchionne in a more or less similar situation, who was anything but blonde, attractive, or female.
so, who's gender biased here?
note: fca was much more worse off than yahoo. i did acquire it when marchionne had already worked some serious miracles into the company. and yet, the disbelief continued on and on and on, pretty much until the day he died.
This IAT is patently absurd. You're not tracking or analyzing gender bias, you're asking people to be biased by the very nature of the test. If you gave a 'neither male or female' option, most people would probably choose that for every word.
This is a good example of pseudo-science in a video with a misleading title. Not only that the Implicit-association test has nothing to do with neuroscience but even in the social psychology field where this test is mostly used it is controversial. The vast literature disputing the test indicates that it is not clear what the test measures exactly, its lack of reproducibility, etc. It is ironical, though, that a research/presentation on people's bias and prejudices proves to be biased itself.
Can I just say that she heavily leans into the idea that women are being discriminated against without actually presenting any evidence of this while also saying that people have an unconscious bias against women which is actually untrue though my biggest gripe is that she says that women aren’t equally payed or represented in the science field in which your pay is decided by your findings and reputation she also says that this happens in other fields which occurs because women choose to go into different fields and many of those that don’t are usually worse than their male counterparts but not always well either way I’m gonna end my ramblings but for those who read this far have a nice day
The UK has a queen ,a female prime minister a female Scottish first minister. And still this is not good enough . To be honest I say equality should be encouraged a lot more .women should die on the front lines just as much as men . Us men has been dying for woman since time began I think it's time everyone die for themselves.
"When we associate masculinity with money, and muscles, and domination, and agression, we dishonor legions of good men who do not embody these characteristics". Men are selected by women on these very characteristics. It's not about being "good" or "bad", it's all about getting "laid". Then it's about helping our offspring against others' offspring. It's natural selection.
This is an awful talk, though I hope I’ve just simply missed something. This woman talks about the impact of media on gender bias and how it negatively sways our perceptions. However, unless I missed it, she did not point out that a vast portion of women make the consumer decisions (I do not have the statistical analysis to hand) and therefore, is the media not reflective of what they want predominantly?
You never made the case that there is a problem. By nature, men and women are substantially different. Men are better at some things and women at others. I don't see the concrete benefit to society if we change. In fact I do see a substantial benefit to society if we regress. Attract women back into the home where they would truly care for the next generation and not primarily for themselves. You can have children and men can't. You are way better at nurturing than men are. And men are better at producing. So, you do what you do best and let men do what they do best and things will be way better in the end for all.
Bias is a very natural thing we need to get adjusted to the nature and the environment and survive at last We have to understand human being. We cannot ignore the outcome from biological progress. Why do we have to remove all the difference to make the world equity just to achieve the implementation of ideology. We need to focus on the harmony not on the equity. Even though we have to pursue the human right investing our resources for mechanical gender equality is not the top priority. Almost 50 vs 50 in every fields is not possible.We don't have to make such an unatural effort to achieve 50:50. Those who are uncomfortable for differences in gender is going to make unatural effort endlessly until they get 50:50 in the fields where they are only highly valued.
But if the "Nerdy Male" decor affected the female students negatively. While the abscence of "Nerdy Male" decor didnt make any difference to the male students... doesnt that suggest that the female students were the ones who were more biased?
The idea of coffee cups and plants being "neutral" decor is after all subjective.
Also, im kind of curious to whether that study took into account the ammount of Trekkies who are female.
Bias? Or biology and science?? If the women did not want to go into computer science, then why try to force them to? Reading into the idea that is believed to be there only works against the issue. The problem isn't some type of inequality, there are other possible factors that are ignored because the people who study gender are wanting a specific result. There is a huge amount of confirmation bias in this field.
I understand where she is coming from but not all women want to work in the fields that would be male dominated.
I would never want to be a politician or work in I.T. I love protecting people but I would be too a scared for my life to be a cop.
But I would love to be a professional athlete or a poker player.
I just wish for equal opportunity, respect and professional credit.
Just because u guess on a mens picture while thinking of the word and meaning of Protection, that doesnt mean women cant protect and also doesnt mean that u should expect every man to be protective by nature. The physical and psycological differences between men and women just favor the majority of their kind for some "tasks" and "positions". I know a lot of women telling me they made only bad experiences from female Bosses. That doesnt mean women are bad in leading positions in general! But in the EU for example the big concerns were forced to raise female leading positions to 25% overall to lower the gap. So now even with equal or better qualification the woman will get the job and thats why i dont think feminism will make this world any better. The german army write on their "commercials" that women will be prefered. I know the german army didnt fight for a long time and just special ops teams got involved in anti terror missions, but why should women be rated higher then men when it comes to be a Soldier? There are far too much "nonsense" actions based on gender-equality that didnt even reach the real social problems with the gender-differences such as violance or abusing.
I wish the speaker would have gone into a little more depth on the study with the two rooms: the stereotypically nerdy one and the neutral one. Men's interests apparently were unaffected by the environment, but the women's were. Is this bias? Is it something inherent in how men and women see things due to biology differences? There was some deeper insight that could have been gleamed from that but she didn't mention it. One could infer that the problem women run into in science and technology fields is environmental, not due to how they are treated - basically "I'd enjoy lab stuff more if there wasn't all that lab stuff in the lab..."
Men have smarter brains/fysiologi/ biologically - though not said a woman can't be smart.. But she clearly have a different brain, with different intrest otherwise top companies would hire more girls.. They want to hire the best - most of on top companies hire through application - guys are more nerdy into system, and logic that has to do with machines, math, physics.. Women are more into humans, relationship etc! Its as simple as that..
I did not hear much neuroscience. I also did not hear anything about how men and women simply prefer different things on average. She went to the old saw about CEOs and the like. She did get some things right, though. But she still missed the boat big time.
Here's a bias...on average, men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people. These differences in interest have more to do with the careers that people choose more than anything else. Even with an environment of perfectly equitable opportunities...that means that if we achieve the Nirvana where nobody is ever selected for, or rejected from, an opportunity on the basis of their gender...the distributions of men and women in many fields will never be equal simply due to the fact that men and women are interested in different things.
This sounded like an interesting topic, unfortunately, it did not turn out to be about _the surprising neuroscience of gender inequality._ Our speaker, Janet Crawford, does touch on neuroscience a bit when she explains that we all cope with the influx of data by using rafts of associations. So, if two concepts have a strong association in the world that we observe then they will very likely have a similar association in our minds. This will be true even if the observed association was in an artificial social construct.
The rest of what she had to say was apparently the musings of a gender prejudiced ideologue whose field of study may ironically include bias when she cannot seem to recognize her own. Whenever anything which might not be leading to equitable outcomes for women is mentioned it does not lead to any examination of why that is the case, it just moves directly to the conclusion that it is something that must be changed. When something is brought up where men are receiving an inequitable outcome there is still no examination of why that is so, but this time the reaction is rejoicing an achievement. The achievement being that women were doing better than men in that regard.
I really am sorry for whatever it was that happened to her that left her so bitter and unhappy. It must be horrible to view the whole of society as a competition between men and women with the two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination. I do not think this avenue of research can be very good for her, nor do I think that it does this field of research much good to have her speak in public about it.
_"two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination"_
But hasn't that become the case? 50 years ago, it was very easy to make the case that feminism was going to improve the condition of both men and women. But the low hanging fruit is no longer there and I can think of far more gender issues that are a zero sum game (or even negative sum games) than a positive sum game.
I was born in Soviet Union, where women "were equal to men" they were "Men in skirts" and they were expected to work just as hard as men; hauling iron ore, chopping wood, tilling ground, inhaling deadly chimicals in labs, you name it women did it. Any and all jobs were EQUAL & no one cared if they were pregnant, breastfeeding or on your period. Soviet women became sick, barren and angry at the world... and the government covered up all the stats... the population dwindled (and is still droping)... and then, soviet empire unraveled and fell apart - thank God! Now I'm going to go hugg my husband for working like a man, so I can be a mom to our kids at home!
I like the research contanto, but um tia other hand the final statement isn't true. The society is responsible for damaging minorities, in this case, women. This is politics. The association is a performed tool.
Society, as a whole, has seriously overcompensated for gender bias. Look at the numbers of women in college and graduate school. And also look at the numbers of men in prisons. Men have abdicated their role to women.. Society is heading in a dangerous direction. The "emasculated man" is a disturbed individual who models behavior for young males to emulate.
As soon as a man or woman brings up the fact that the gender pay gap is real. They lose all credibility and me along with it.
That horse has been flogged to death and shown to be all BS. Either find a new song or get off the hobby horse, your time is up.
Humans live with primitive mindsets, that's in the core of all sexism and gender inequality. Lack of higher consciousness and deeper understanding. The more primitive a culture is, the more sexist it is. It's a fact.
Very limited information to confirm her own opinion. Said to think that this will influence any anybody. Women we always given an unfair advantage in school when I grew up 40 years ago. Studies show the knowledge a teacher has on the gender will increase there mark by a 1/3rd. I don't know any women willing to do danagous work. 97% of work place fatalities are male. Yet when we provide for family we are marginalized and told it is our duty to be sacrifice and be disposable.
There is thousands of shelters to support women to every individual male support.
I know my life would be better if I was a women. Women and children first! And send the men to the front lines of war or work!
Totally agree with her. Such nefarious and problematic forces such as rationality and "the brain" are enemies of gender egalitarianism. If the world and your brain is in opposition to her gender egalitarian views, the the world and your brain must be wrong.
I'm 3 minutes in and she hasn't stated any facts or legitimate figures, she's telling a story using lots of conjecture and false equivalency. 6 minutes in and she's talking about implicit association and how it is a negative thing because large portions of the population associate feminine traits with women and masculine traits with men; how is that a bad thing? People are different and have different characteristics and that's fine. People succeed by playing to their strengths and developing their weaknesses but, if you're 5'5 there's not a whole lot you can do if you want to play in the NBA or if you have an IQ of 100 and want to be an astrophysicist. Let the people who are good at doing the things that men or women are particularly good at do them. Women don't need to be Navy SEALS and Men don't bear children; there's nothing sexist about it.
Let's have an actual neuroscientist educate us on the neuroscience of genders. While Crawford brings up important points, perhaps a scientist will be better qualified to tackle the given subject and explain our gender-related thoughts and behaviors empirically.
Men have more pressure to earn money, therefore take said studies and said jobs.
I LOVE history...but damned, it's not exactly reliable, go into teaching? No thanks. Money not good enough.
So I became an accountant.
My sister loves children, therefore studied to work with disadvantaged children.
We need people like my sister, but I'm sure I'll be earning a lot more because I didn't follow my passion, I followed what I could tolerate and make money with.
All I hear in the media is how much sexism exists out in the workforce and in the world. However, in my 25 years of life I have YET to directly encounter it. Now, if it is SO prevalent in our society (as the media puts it) how have I not experienced it yet?
On average, men have five inches in height and more than 25 pounds more skeletal muscle than women. It's hardly surprising then that our unconscious association for 'strong' would be the male rather than the female figure, and for 'fragile' the reverse, or that, in order to advance 'gender equality' we've had to adjust the standards for physical strength in some professions to get even a small proportion of women into them.
Wouldn't it be better to simply acknowledge that, in a job that rewards physical strength, there will most likely be more men than women? There will be women who are physically strong enough, just not as many. Big-five personality testing has the mean for women at the 60th percentile for agreeableness, but for men at the 40th percentile. Why should we expect equal numbers of male and female lawyers (who benefit from disagreeableness) or therapists (the reverse)? There will still be women lawyers (speaking from experience, there ARE women who score in the bottom 10th percentile on agreeableness, believe me!) and male therapists, just not, perhaps, equal numbers.
That doesn't rule women out of any career, but it gets us away from this obsession with equality of outcome as the measure of whether we have succeeded in making the career open to women, as it should be, or whether, instead, we are afflicted with the mysterious disease of "implicit bias."
Bias is making a judgment about an individual, without adequate data. We actually all have adequate data to make judgments about "normal"* men and "normal" women. The latter are weaker. Fact. But any one woman may well be much stronger than any one man. That's where the need for data comes in. But that's not what these "implicit bias" tests measure, and the science behind them is mostly bogus.
*I am using the word "normal" here to refer to the population at or near the mean on a standard distribution curve, not to imply anything pejorative about those who fall outside that range, either above or below.
Come on women build buildings, bridges with us. Come on women lets mine coal together. Come on women why are you not fishing in full ocean or work on the height. Why you are taking safe and easy jobs instead better payed so you don't have to complain that in shop selling things you can't earn us much us man??
The fact that the implicit bias test works all over the world in different types of cultures and societies surely proves that it's not actually implicit bias, but biological. Humans attribute other humans with certain words because of their gender, true. But maybe that's because men generally do make better leaders or protectors because of the biology that makes up men. The same goes for women; perhaps they're more nurturing and fragile than men because they have certain hormones or their brain works in a different way to mens' brains. If it was just in the Western world that this happened, then it would have more of a chance of convincing me but if it's supposed to be society that's given us these biases, yet it works accross all kinds of societies, it's probably not the reason for it.
It's women make men. Most of the alpha males I know have wives and children. Most weanie boys I know are unmarried. She says she wants to help men. The men who take her advice will probably not procreate thankfully.
Thank You Janet Crawford ... even if you did not exactly use "neuroscience" ... OR you did not make the neuroscience aspect clear??? Anyway, in the field of psychology I have read many studies that look at many forms of Bias ... and what you say here does indeed reflect the general findings of Bias (we all have effects of bias (not Just gender bias) due to how we take in ... store and use ... the information we are exposed to (be that from first or second hand experience or read etc ...) ... It was interesting for me to read the comments here and find tons of gender bias ... and they seem to have no clue. Those of us who do understand need to speak up at every opportunity available (and especially the males who understand because help is needed from males, for those males, who do not yet understand (they will see what males say as more valid) ... sad but true. Love & Peace to All
Before you apply, the following information should be reviewed to ensure the appropriate program and start date is selected:
Be aware that Student Visas, if needed, can take time (approximately 3 months), so we recommend that you apply as soon as possible. For non-EU applicants under age 18, please review the additional requirements (legal guardianship is required) needed to apply for an Austrian visa.
English Language Requirements.
In order to qualify for any of Webster Universitys academic programs, a minimum level in English proficiency is required. To learn more about our language requirements and how to ensure you meet them, please click here.
Selecting your Entry Date.
First-time freshman students are encouraged to begin their studies with the Fall 1 and Spring 1 starting dates. However, if classes are available, freshman students are furthermore welcome to start with our Fall 2 and Spring 2 starting dates. First-time freshman students are unfortunately not able to start with the Summer term.
All Bachelor transfer students - transferring from an accredited university (accredited by the Ministry of Education in your country) - can also start in all of our 5 terms, if classes are available.