Bias is a thing. It always is, and always will be - we're all prone to it. It is human nature to put things into boxes, and to have assumptions and preconceptions. They might be cultural influence, or they might be due to personal experiences, but we all have them.

Gender bias is one of these things, and something that is being discussed a lot. Yes, men and women are different. Some of these differences may be nurture, but there's quite a bit of nature too... and I think that's important to know, and take into consideration.

Men, overall, have a different muscle structure - and accordingly are typically a good bit stronger than women. When I grew up, I was given the impression that women can do everything just as well as men. The intention behind this was, I'm quite sure, to not let me (and the other girls in my age cohort) form the impression that we're in any way inferior to the boys. It had the side effect, though, that I believed for many years that I should be just as proficient at everything as men are or can be... including carrying things or heavy lifting. Ah well. I have carried a lot of heavy boxes over the years, and I can't say that I regret it. However, I've also put a lot of pressure on myself to carry just as much, or perform just as well at hard physical tasks, as the male colleagues, and that is indeed something that I could have done without, in retrospective.

Bouldering actually was the thing that finally made me realise: there are anatomical differences, and I will never be as physically strong as my husband if we're in similar good health. That's just nature.

There may also be (I'd say there probably are) differences in how men and women think. There is, however, no proper reason that there should be so many more men in high positions in companies, and so few women. There's also no proper reason why women candidates for something like the post of Kanzler in Germany should be asked about their children and family, and who will take care of them, and men are not. That is just ridiculous.

Good news, though: These days, that inequal treatment is at least seen, and pointed out, by quite a few people. More good news: Germany is getting a law for a gender quota in larger companies, so that at least one woman will be present in the future if there's more than three people in the top management tier. That definitely is a start.

And to round this all off: Here's an article about gender bias, and how reducing the bias during the selection process has led to a significant change of the gender distribution in orchestras. Including a link to a website where you can test your own implicit biases... which is quite interesting!

 

Once in a while, I stumble across gender-related stuff. Actually, I stumble across it rather frequently - but most of the time, I read it, possibly think a bit about it, and then that's it, even though it's a topic I find really interesting.

Most of the occasions when my attention is drawn to sex or gender differences are actually not when I read about it, but when we are bouldering, with most men being significantly taller than I am (thus giving them more reach) and having significantly more strength than I have (which also helps when climbing). In those cases, I sigh, try to deal with it (and try harder at the move), find a workaround that makes use of my rather good flexibility, or in some cases give up on that specific boulder problem.

Work-wise, I don't get much of gender issues in my own workspace. Archaeology is not a male-dominated discipline, and textiles and textile archaeology are rather female-dominated (though we do have a good number of men in the field, and that is a very good thing in my opinion). I've never felt as if I've been less valued or less accepted for my expertise due to being female in archaeology. I did have issues, though, in non-work-related things (bike shop people and car dealers are the two primary things that spring to mind).

I am really, really glad, from these relatively few experiences alone, that my work life is not really affected by such things - and that I don't have to invent a fake male coworker to make my life easier, or have to deal with sexism daily at work, or work hard at convincing clients that I am reliable, thus needing much more time for the same task.

And the thing is... this is still normal in so many spaces. Makes you wonder why?

Well. At least issues like this solve the question "Kirk or Picard?"

Looks like the "Kirk vs Picard" debate has finally been settled. pic.twitter.com/QQgWr1JlzS

— Јeff Үαuѕ (@foldedfish) 23. August 2017

Here's another hodgepodge of things you will hopefully find interesting:

Springer has an ebook sale until August 1, where you can buy all books from the archive (from between 1842-2004) for 9,99 € with a coupon code. It is valid for the whole German language area, and it actually makes these books affordable, so you might want to check out this sale. (Archaeology books are under Social Sciences.)

On a completely different note, Con or Bust still has a few memberships for WordCon in Helsinki in 2017 (as well as a lot of other memberships), available to non-white SFF folks. Con or Bust aims to help non-white SFF fans attend cons - because more diversity is a good thing.

The EU VAT is still a topic, and whatever happens now after the referendum in GB, this chapter is not over for any seller in Europe. Here's an update from the Action Group, and maybe you can help, too, and take action as they suggest. Gratuitous bonus: Brexit comic.

CityMetric has a post about small changes that make huge differences in how women move and what they use in cities - a really, really interesting read.

Finally, there's a competition about creating spiral textiles inspired by a find - you can participate and create your own interpretation using historic textile techniques. More info can be found on their website spiraltextile.com.

Before I drift off into the blissfulness of the holidays, with nothing to do but hang out with loved ones, have yummy food and too much caffeinated hot beverages and the other usual silliness that accompanies this season, one more non-fluffy blogpost for you - related to gender, and work, and making enough money to live:

Get rich or die vlogging - the sad economics of internet fame tells about the dilemma of those trying to make an income off their youtube videos. (Hint: it's really, really difficult.) Another piece of proof that doing a job you love, and doing it well, does not necessarily mean you'll be able to live on it: Mallory Ortberg from The Toast on Work, Writing, and the Cost of Creative Freedom.

Also related to getting an income: Why Women Don't Apply for Jobs Unless They're 100% Qualified. Harvard Business Review lets you read 5 articles for free - I think this one is really interesting and worth spending one of your five on. The TL;DR? Job descriptions are more like guidelines, and if you think you could do the job well, give it a try. (Another article on HBR, somehow related, is Women Need to Realize Work Isn't School.)

On an unrelated note - I've installed a spambot blocker for the comments, which should not be noticeable at all for you. My test, at least, was successful...

Time again to clear out some of those open tabs and pelt you with links!

Here's a comic explaining how the desperate situation in Syria developed.

PhD Scholar blogs about finding answers to questions she didn't have through research - oh, how I know that effect!

Viveka Hansen writes about Nordic Iron Age clothing and dyes on her blog TEXTILIS.

If you are interested in textile conservation, check out the online workbook "Clothes tell Stories", intended to make aware of conservation issues and help with choices in museums and collections where there's no access to a professional conservator to help.

Andrea Phillips has a lovely and thoughtful post about Equal-Opportunity Objectification.

And one last women-/gender-related link: Doug posts about a conference session regarding professional women in archaeology, with links. Highly recommended!