2016 #DiversityJC – Emily’s Year End Review


It’s the end of 2016 and it’s been a year of change in all sorts of ways (for hopefully good, but also almost certainly for the worse in many ways too, especially on the diversity/inclusion front as at least the US became demonstrably less friendly following our 2017 election). 

In these first 2017 posts, Ian, Emily, and the good Doctor give our thoughts about this past year of DiversityJC and some ideas for the future. Ian’s post is here.

Remember you can subscribe to the DiversityJC Newsletter to keep up with all our discussions and posts.


I avoided writing my DiversityJC year-end review for weeks. Sure, I was busy with work, and then with family and friends and the holidays. But… I also didn’t really know what to write. 

Revisiting anything in 2016 seems… completely overshadowed by the US election. The incoming president. His cabinet picks.

I was derailed by this election. Absolutely and completely. I didn’t do any work for days – weeks even. And I know that’s one of my own forms of privilege – the ability to press pause while I grieved and clicked on links and read posts and tried to make sense of what happened, what to do next. And wept.

While I’ve been back to work (clearly), I’ve still been struggling to come back to social media. Aside from the easy, escapist space of Instagram, my online presence since November has comes in strange fits and starts.  Engaging seemed at once inconsequential, given what has happened (and will happen), and all-encompassing – I have been absent for days to weeks from Twitter, but posted long-winded statements and questions on Facebook, laying aside research to obsessively follow and respond to the conversation that resulted.

Eventually, I found myself in this place where I was completely torn. On the one hand, I feel like I am not doing enough to prepare and to fight what is happening, what is going to happen – on the other, starkly aware of the risks to my own research should I take any more time away.

I was desperate for some time, some space to regain my balance. To see clearly my way forward. More days were lost as I spun my wheels.

Over the holidays, I was finally able to carve out a little of that time, that space. Not much, but some. I also relied on the voices of those more eloquent than myself:

Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: “Re-framing Ocean Conservation in this Post-Election Era”
Dr. Eric Anthony Grollman: “Why I am Committed to Fighting Oppression in Academia”

I also finally sat down to review the topics our Diversity Journal Club has addressed in 2016 – which was strangely challenging. I am so focused on what’s next, on 2017 – and, as I mentioned, it’s been really tough for me to look back at … Before. It already feels like another era.

But what I realized as I read over our recaps and intros that ruminated on why women leave STEM, whether we can overlook someone’s behavior in light of their achievement, on toxic masculinity and Nobel prizes and how bias and the imposter syndrome are connectedall of these things remain critical. Their importance as examples of why inclusion and diversity matter, how they translate into the science I love so much, the science that loves to believe it is objective and above such social ills – these matter not less but more in the coming months.

We also started out 2016 talking about what “diversity” means. That conversation had me reading some posts that were challenging and eye-opening (for me anyway), and thinking about why diversity matters beyond being the right thing to do. We also discussed what it means to be an ally, and why Orlando is poignant not just for us as people, as citizens, but also as scientists.

These conversations are still a form of activism – a critical one. We must continue to highlight and share the science that shows us how much inclusion matters, and that the scientific community is not above or immune to the societal ills of prejudice and bias. We must continue to talk more broadly about what diversity and inclusion look like, how social justice cannot end at a lab or office or classroom door. We must continue to educate ourselves and each other. If this election proved one thing, it’s that we need to listen more, educate more, engage more.

This is a crucial way forward in this new political climate. Conversations like those we have under #DiversityJC are more important than ever.

In the end, as 2017 rapidly approaches like a freight train, my answer came clearly one night as I lay fretting and awake: I simply resolve to work harder. One thing that becomes more obvious the older I get is that there are indeed no do-overs. We have this time, now. That is it. We don’t other chances. It sounds cliche and trite – but it also seems more true now than it ever has to me before.

My research will get done, but I also turn more attention and more effort to my To Do list – not just in the weeks following November 4th, but from here until we go back in the election booth in 2018, and in 2020. And beyond – bias and discrimination do not end along party lines. I am focused on a job that values and allows for social justice work as an explicit part of the package. I want to do good science – but I want to make science better even more.

Discussions as part of the Diversity Journal Club hold a central place for me to forward my own education, as I push my career in new directions, and, I hope, the education of others. I hope more people share the research and topics we look to cover in the coming months, more join us. I hope to post more here, too – to put this space to good use.

Our work is just beginning.

Emily (@DrEmilySKlein)

Albert Einstein: he was an introvert. What about you?


It’s the imposter syndrome… or is it?

I learned one of the most important things from graduate school in my first semester. A senior, tenured, well-respected and highly published faculty member told us something along the following lines:

“You will go through periods where you feel like you know everything, and then you will go through periods where you feel like you know absolutely nothing, and you’re just hoping no one notices. The important thing to remember is that everyone, from graduate student to tenured academic at the top of their field, everyone goes through both of these periods regularly. Prepare for this pattern to happen throughout your career.”

I actually remember what it was like to not really know what she was talking about. As a fresh-faced first year, I had yet to even experience the Imposter Syndrome.  Of course, since then I’ve come back to this message many, many times. It’s been a helpful reminder that the Imposter Syndrome is real, and more importantly, it’s normal.


But… what if it’s not just the Imposter Syndrome?


I know women who started out their academic careers believing sexism was dead, feminism had won. While, sure, some fields are lagging behind a bit, overall woman are earning well over 50% of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in STEM fields, and are closing the gap on PhDs. The evidence speaks for itself…. right?

In this assumed post-patriarchy, there is no sexism to explain what we experience – we look inward when our confidence is undermined. We tell ourselves it’s the Imposter Syndrome rearing it’s ugly head, that we need to just believe in ourselves and know these feelings are normal…. right?


What if they aren’t?


For June, the Diversity Journal Club will delve into the Imposter Syndrome and how it intersects with diversity and inclusion. We will be discussing Alexis Hancock’s

How The Rhetoric of Imposter Syndrome Is Used to Gaslight Women in Tech

While this was written for an audience in tech fields, it applies pretty similarly to those in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) more broadly. Do we use the Imposter Syndrome to explain away how microaggressions make us feel, how stereotype threat undermines our confidence? To help us ignore real reasons for our struggles that may not actually be fixed by believing in ourselves, or working harder?

We hope to expand this conversation to explore the difference between individual and systemic problems – or if that assessment is even important. Is it something I personally need to do differently or work at – or is it systemic bias?


Please  join us on Twitter under #DiversityJC on Friday 19 August at 2pm Eastern Time for the discussion!

Emily Klein, Ian Street, and Doctor PMS

Why do women leave STEM?

Reminder that you can be kept up to date and get #DiversityJC content delivered to you by subscribing to our newsletter that comes out 1-2x each month.

The #DiversityJC discussion will happen on Friday, April 22, from 2-3pm ET.

Last month, we talked about being being an ally.

This month we’re going to discuss a topic that follows on that and discuss why women leave their chosen career paths – in STEM or otherwise, as this is observed and studied beyond science.

Spoiler alert: it may well not be the reason you think. Compensation is a big factor, as it is for men.

Related to unfair compensation is of course, culture. A new study found that our common ideas about science, women, and men may mean we “perceive women as incompatible” with science. The exception to this was when the survey takers were at a women’s college where the bias disappeared. Think Progress has a write up of the study.

More evidence? Sure. Paige Jarreau recently wrote about how even facts can’t convince people about gender bias, citing a 2015 study that explored comments on Discover Magazine and the New York Times articles on studies demonstrating gender bias. While a majority of comments in the study were positive, those that were negative were really negative, and these, especially from men, simply denied the facts presented or justified the system as was (i.e. women aren’t “built” for science…).

Also recent and related, research has found women are penalized for promoting diversity. For men, it’s of no benefit, but does no harm either. This is yet another example that could well contribute to women leaving STEM. Even if allies exist, they may not be sufficient in a system with a lot of in-built biases as this story about Dr. Nettie Stevens, a 19th-20th century Geneticist shows. Stevens had at least one supportive ally in Thomas Hunt Morgan– a rock star of genetics as we might say today, but nowhere else.

This month on #DiversityJC, we’ll look collectively to this recent research and discuss findings, and ask – why do women leave STEM careers?

If you were a woman in STEM but left the traditional academic career path, what is your story for why/how you left?

How do you feel about it now?

If you are/were a woman in STEM, do the above studies and stories resonate with your experiences?

If you are/were a man working in STEM – do you see evidence, as well? What have you witnessed – and what of the experiences of your friends, colleagues, and significant others?

If facts aren’t sufficient, what else might work to promote inclusion in STEM?

Join us for the discussion on April 22, 2-3pm ET!





Workaholism in STEM: Deeper implications of the 16-hour work day.

Prompted by a Science Careers post, and a response, this week in #DiversityJC we asked: Is workaholism a necessary requirement for science – and what are the deeper implications of this mindset?

Our discussion kicked off with a conversation around how this may impact men and women differently. I found it curious that Luna CM Centifanti (@LunaCentifanti) noted her own long work hours “put off” especially her female students, as they didn’t want that commitment and wanted to “settle down”. For me, this was the crux of the issue. At least outwardly, we still have this myth that women prioritize family over career, leading to the “leaky pipeline“. More recent research is showing this is not the case. Women and men equally prioritize having a family and a career. Instead, the issue is that women may end up with the “double burden” of taking on stereotypical roles at home and trying to keep up with work, and, perhaps more importantly women – and minorities – likely leave STEM due to the every day biases they face and stereotypes that create challenges for moving ahead in their careers (we don’t often discuss how the “leaky pipeline” may also be about minorities – although this would discredit the idea that it’s due to women leaving to procreate). In addition, many women and minorities also leave when they feel their careers don’t value social justice or outreach enough.

The thing is this: It’s not that women leave to have families, or that women believe they can’t have the home life they envision and work the crazy hours, or that women value family over work more than men. Maybe it’s more that women and men both already see women as taking on those responsibilities, and make those decisions. Because that’s what we think we’re supposed to do. We’ve talked about this before.

We also should remember that the gendered aspects of these decisions is detrimental for women and men:

And we’ve talked more about this here.

In addition to the gendered aspects of the workaholic mindset, we wanted to dig in a bit deeper

There is privilege tied to being able to work long hours and have kids. That privilege likely includes a partner (as is the case here), as well as a workplace that allows your “kids to crawl around the lab“. Moreover, I’d say there’s privilege in the mindset that you deserve this kind of support in your personal life so you can work 16-17 hours a day. That someone will clean the house, change the diapers, cook the meals. There is also privilege in a workplace that allows your children to be present, that you have access to whenever you want it, that has the resources available to you to do such intense work for so long. The privilege that assumes you can get to work safely and easily to be there very early and leave very late. There is privilege in this that we take for granted.

We also wanted to get into how this workaholic mindset affected more of our lives – that it had broader implications for us as people. Work-life balance isn’t just for balancing kids. First, we may have additional responsibilities.

We may be going through a divorce, taking care of aging parents, or need to deal with personal crises. These are critical, yet we rarely acknowledge them or talk about them. For me, I had a major family emergency mid-way through my PhD that my family is still dealing with. I needed a month away from my research, and much additional time (and therapy) in the years that followed to process, including considering if I should put my PhD on hold. Having a supporting advisor and committee as well as the time away from work was crucial to getting through this.

Second, it also just means what we value beyond work – and not always the serious stuff.

We all deserve the ability to balance our work with things outside it that matter to us. I think we often believe work-life balance is about having kids – but as someone who doesn’t want kids, I also deserve time away from the office – without guilt. These additional aspects, and feeling free to enjoy them as well as spending time with our kids and loved ones, is all critical for mental health – something we’ve also talked about and a very serious concern in the sciences we are not great at dealing with.

Third, there are additional responsibilities within our careers that we de-value or simply ignore under the workaholic mindset. When we believe we must work excessive hours, it constrains other aspects of our professional lives. This certainly impacts us early career scientists.

Another point from Ian (@IHStreet), this kind of pressure can also limit our ability to develop skills in teaching, to seek out and actively participate in mentoring students, and do outreach. This are important for our careers, and they’re fulfilling and enjoyable, but may not be counted as “science”.

Finally, an additional aspect of workaholism that really struck me as important was how it intersects with diversity and social justice work. This work is often undervalued already, and overlooked in terms of the tenure process, for instance. In addition, the people most often doing this work are likely those that are in the underrepresented groups themselves – they know first hand the need for this work, and likely feel more responsibility to do it. Therefore, they end up with more of the burden of social justice and diversity work that is already undervalued and overlooked – and they’re under the workaholic mentality too. How does this fit in when you’re also under pressure to work long hours on your research?

Taking all of this together, I felt the conversation made clear that workalism is not generally helpful in science when it is used as some idealic standard we all must achieve to be “serious” scientists. Moreover, the workaholic mindset may be a myth. As the original post points out, people often overestimate how much we actually work, meaning the 16-17 hour work day is not a reality.

In addition, working more doesn’t always mean working better.

…and not all institutions have this workaholic mentality.

So. How to make a difference? How do we combat workaholism? Well, it does start with each of us – first making a change in our mindset and ignoring the workaholic mentality as necessary.

We also need to figure out how to balance your own life, and what works for you personally.

Maybe part of this is seeking out role models who strike the balance you’d like to emulate…

…and be a role model for life beyond the lab yourself.

But the end of the day, this all should depend on what life you want. Where that balance is for you. As Luna CM Centifanti (@LunaCentifanti) pointed out, if you love your work, the long hours may be want you want to do. If so, great! But it should be about choice. We should also be recognizing what makes those long hours possible for us – whether that’s a spouse with less hours, or leaving the laundry another week – and allow other people to balance their time, their way. In addition, especially if we are not working for diversity or social justice but we say it matters to us, we need to speak up for our colleagues doing that work and make sure it is also valued. It matters for your colleagues, and it absolutely matters for your students.

We want to be happy, healthy, productive scientists, and a healthy balance in life and work is critical – as well as a welcoming, inclusive institution and campus.

Thanks to everyone who joined us! It was clearly an important topic, and we covered a lot of ground. Some additional resources:

From Ian Street (@IHStreet): NPR Planet Money – What We Work So Much
From Melanie Nelson (@melanie_nelson): Productivity Takes Work
From biochem belle (@biochembelle): The Massive Fitness Trend That’s Not Actually Healthy At All
From Matt Burgess (@matthewgburgess): Why Not Have A Life? (conveniently follows the piece we’re talking about here..)
And some time tracking apps:

biochem belle recommends Hours and Toggl
Jacquelyn Gill (‏@JacquelynGill): ATracker (and watch for a post on this on her blog).

Hope you enjoyed as much as we did – and please leave comments or anything I missed in the comments!

Thank you and take care until next time!

Emily K (@DrEmilySKlein)
Doctor PMS (‏@Doctor_PMS)
Ian Street (@IHStreet)

If it’s outdated, it’s still voiced. Speak up: #DiversityJC recap.

This week in Diversity Journal Club, we had a discussion about the importance of addressing outdated comments and attitudes (like this and this). Both had such strong and negative responses – so did that mean we’ve moved on? That they might not really matter?

Doctor PMS (@Doctor_PMS) and Ian (@IHStreet) got us started..

Should we indeed be paying attention to the outdated comments like those of Tim Hunt and Ask Alice? Should we just ignore them, wish they would evolve, or wonder how they didn’t know better? Perhaps we should be able to filter out these wrong opinions, given that it is hard to change, and that they do have deep expertise in some areas (Nobel prize = expertise). But…

Indeed. It can be difficult to filter someone, especially if the comments are not all that blatant. Subtle comments like microaggressions can be hard enough to even identify on their own. When it’s someone you respect and admire, subtle comments can be even more difficult to distinguish and weed out. Moreover, it’s not our responsibility to be someone’s filter – for our own sake or for a larger community, no matter how much you and others respect them. We also discussed this initial idea of it being comments of an “older generation” and if we give them a pass as being from a “different time” (my words). Several took issue with this “older generation” stuff – which is totally correct. Age and generation can mean nothing in these cases, and age is relative. We shouldn’t use age as a blanket clause either, basically. The reason I raised this “older” stuff is because I personally have avoided conversations and used this excuse – I wondered if others had as well, and if there was something to the “well that’s an outdated opinion, it’s not very important, look at the backlash, clearly we’ve come far from there, from that time.

So perhaps it’s not just me who has used this as an excuse?

So maybe I wasn’t the only one. But it is still an excuse. It also brought up an important point:


In the end, we’d more or less agreed age really wasn’t the issue, and learning was a two-way street. We also agreed that, no matter your age, these comments and attitudes do need to be addressed.

Yet these teachable moments can be really challenging.

In addition, as Doctor PMS (@Doctor_PMS) pointed out, change can be tough and painful – and may not be worth our ATP. It may actually be problematic for us, especially as early career scientists, let alone draining. Ian (@IHStreet) reminded us you can’t be sure who is willing to change or be open to the discussion at the onset. On the other hand, as Ruthie (@ruthiepbirger) pointed out, initiating the conversation can be a good litmus test for how ingrained the attitude is, and how open the person is to further dialogue. But back to the first hand, Benjamin Carr (@BenjaminHCCarr) said some people are actively resistant to change.

And, yeah, as Luna CM Centifanti (@LunaCentifanti) noted, people in leadership and power positions are often people of privilege. As others agreed, they are also the ones with the most control. Over us, over our careers…

I understand these challenges. I know it’s scary. I still think it’s critical. We have to say something. We can’t allow these comments to go unchallenged even when we don’t have twitter ready to back us up. Why? Because other people beyond you are listening. Because if they say it to you, they have said it to others. Because those others might be students, early career scientists, just getting their bearings. They may think statements like that are ok, or are hurt and demeaned by them. When we fail to speak up, we allow those statements to enforce especially unconscious biases and stereotypes of some, and allow others to have their self-worth undermined.



In addition, some listening don’t realize these comments, or their larger experiences, are due to bias and stereotypes and are not personal. Without someone speaking up or calling out, these can be internalized.

So how to go about addressing comments? Moreover, SometimesScienceSux (@SmtimScienceSux) questioned whether correcting someone would really change their mind – which begs the question if you can engage them in further dialogue beyond just the correction. Will they be open to it? Are you be prepared? Perhaps a gentle nudge, as Ian (@IHStreet) suggested, or offering your perspective on the comment, as V. Siva (@DrVidSiva) recommended. Ian (@IHStreet) further noted it’s likely easier if they know you personally, and I agree. I’ve had the most luck with heart-to-heart conversations. In addition, or if you don’t have a personal relationship to draw on, ask people questions, try not to just tell , find out what they think is behind what they’ve said or done. And remember what you learned in elementary school: use “I” statements. Wandering Scientist (@wandsci) also made a great suggestion:

It can be frustrating, especially as we do end up being the ones careful of our words. As Nicole Morgan (@coralnerd) said, for some reason, people can respond really negatively to something as simple and true as “I’m offended by that“, and Ruthie Birger (@ruthiebirger) reminded us about gaslighting and that we’ll like hear “you’re being too sensitive.” So be prepared. We also talked briefly about the need for a safe space to voice our thoughts – but how this isn’t always available. Ruthie Birger (@ruthiebirger) and I agreed that we can actually make spaces safer – when we feel comfortable, we should more apt to speak up about diversity, or share our own (like me being out as bi, even though I present as straight) to make spaces safer for others. Wandering Scientist (@wandsci) also noted that they are often taken more seriously when talking about racism, whereas they feel less comfortable talking about sexism. This likely has to do with when you have the privilege in a situation, so take advantage of that. If you don’t feel like you can speak about a subject, like racism if you’re white, simply ask questions about it – what your institution is doing – and raise other voices up to speak. We can also spend a little more time being introspective, and thinking about advice and feedback we get and how we take it. About how the feedback you’d give to would feel (do unto others…). And we should encourage others to do the same…

We still need support in speaking out. We still need a community to back us. It will always be scary, and you never know the impact or backlash that may come of it – there’s a reason we haven’t made as much progress and we should: paradigms are entrenched (that’s why they’re paradigms), old biases die hard. You never know when someone will take offense. We should think carefully about how we address these issues.

I think perhaps a real key is bringing up diversity well before it is a personal issue. Find out if your institution has a diversity statement, and if not why not. Initiate discussions around diversity, unconscious bias, and microaggressions. Talk to leadership about opening up these dialogues, or even bringing in speakers or doing workshops. You certainly don’t need an incident to start this dialogue – look to the increasing body of literature on this as a problem (some here on this blog), or the many, many incidents in the news these days (oh where to start… #BlackLivesMatter, on campus sexual assault..).

Don’t want to start out negative? You don’t need to! There’s also more and more research about how diversity helps us all and why it is critical. You can start talking about diversity as a strength, in terms of so many things from problem solving to attracting new talent. Start there!

No matter your tactic, start before an incident – even if leadership is iffy, I promise you, there is someone, likely many someones, quietly thanking you for your forward thinking. And just imagine the next generation.

Additional links shared by the group included

From Luna CM Centifanti (@LunaCentifanti): Six Tings You Can Do When People Say Stupid Sexist Shit To You

From Ben Carr (@BenjaminCarr): Stories of sexism in science: ‘sorry about all the women in this laboratory’

Thank you to everyone who participated (as usual in no particular order, and please let us know if someone was missed)!

Ruth Hufbauer ‏(@hufbauer)
Ruthie Birger (@ruthiebirger)
SometimesScienceSux (@SmtimScienceSux)
Ben Carr (@BenjaminCarr)
V. Siva (@DrVidSiva
Wandering Scientist (@wandsci)
Luna CM Centifanti (@LunaCentifanti)
Nicole Morgan (@coralnerd)
Cassie (@mosquito_chaser)
Dr. Q (@DrQualls)
Dr. Wrasse (@labroides)

Until next time!

Emily (@DrEmilySKlein)
Doctor PMS (@Doctor_PMS)
Ian (@IHStreet)

If an old school opinion speaks in a new-age forest, should it matter?

Did you know that lady scientists, oh I’m sorry, “girls” have some trouble in science because they keep ending up in affairs with the man scientists? Also, they cry when you criticize them? Indeed, according to Tim Hunt, these serious concerns about girls in science actually warrants segregated labs.

Segregated labs! Well that would just solve the pesky issue of your advisor constantly trying to look down your shirt! Now why didn’t you think of that, Alice?


Yep. This is just the latest high-profile crap about us “girls” in STEM we’ve been hearing lately. But if we have segregated labs, where we will get the necessary male co-author?? But, you know, the internet was pretty swift (and hilarious) in calling out this BS – and, at least for Dr. Hunt, consequences came fast (and Alice’s piece was removed… but not really as that’s not how the internet works).


We’d like to use these recent examples for our next Diversity Journal Club – but not just them specifically. We’re doing another where we’re not really assigning a reading, and we’re using these latest little whoop-si-doodles! to have a larger conversation. Ian brought up the point that both Dr. Hunt and Dr. Alice are of the old guard if you will – an older generation of scientists that have experienced a different time. If the reaction to either is any indication, the minds of many (let’s hope) have changed, especially in the newer generation. There is forward movement here. Yet it got us thinking…

  1. Does the public response to these recent sentiments mean we have progressed passed these recent sentiments? If so, should we care what they have to say? Are these people we need to engage, or as the ‘old guard’, do we focus on others in younger generations?

  1. These are respected scientists (you don’t get a job writing for Science or a Nobel Prize for nothin’), and people who work with and care about them. And, ya know, I hazard a guess we all know people who say sometimes wildly wrong things (I know I do). How do you maintain relationships with people who say these things? Should we? If so, is an important part of that relationship to engage them? Or do people negate their behavior because they’re old school/come from a different time/whathaveyou?

  1. Is the public shaming we have witnessed (and *ahem* participated in) a good thing, or problematic?


We recognize this is a pretty wide range of topics, but think of them as ‘jumping off points’ for discussion that we felt were interesting, and would initiate a different conversation. We may revisit some that we don’t cover another time (such as the public shaming one…).


Join us to see what transpires on Monday 15 June at 2pm ET!

Emily (@DrEmilySKlein)
Doctor PMS (@Docto_PMS)
Ian (@IHStreet)

#DiversityJC recap: Sexism in STEM & academia

This week we talked about the paradox between the #GaslightingDuo and #AddMaleAuthorGate. On one side a study from researchers at Cornell University that found preference to hire women for tenure-track positions 2:1 on STEM. On the other side a female author was asked to seek male co-authors to “improve” her paper. So is sexism in academia doing better or doing worse? We had a great discussion and you can read the complete Storify compiled by Alberto Roca .

We can see the #GaslightingDuo study with two different optics: One is that there’s some progress being made, as Ian pointed out, but also as a way to pretend it doesn’t happen at all! Indeed, it seems that some things changed and women are doing a little better in academia and elsewhere. Yes, there are successful woman out there. But is it enough?

The study received a lot of criticism in the media. Most of the scientists didn’t trust their methods and results, but it seems that there’s a lot of people out there that want to believe in those results…

But then we see the #AddMaleAuthorGate. Things might be doing better for woman in academia, but still, there’s a lot of sexism out there.

So what can we do about it? How can we make it better?

So the problem goes deep under. And there’s little we can actually do other than discuss it and try to make people aware of it

And to wrap things up, what do YOU think it would happen in this situation?

Thanks to all participants! Hope to see you next time – May 18th 2pm EST!