Read on Twitter
LIVID about that @NatureComms paper. I was at a conference once w a panel on Women in Wildlife. During the Q&A the male dept head of my former university said "It's great to see women get promoted but I often get women telling me they don't like working for other women..."
"...They say interpersonal issues are more dramatic & would rather deal w a male boss." I don't remember the rest but I do remember seeing every female prof in his dept die inside. This idea that women don't work well w/for each other is an incredibly pervasive one & it SUCKS.
It's also perpetuated by women--I recently had a someone in wildlife tell me that she just "doesn't work as well w other women" & gets along better w men. If that person ever has a position of power, who do you think she's going to hire?! This attitude is RAMPANT in STEM.
The myth that women are more dramatic, more prone to issues, more emotional, etc ABSOLUTELY determines who gets hired in the workplace. & now this dumb paper is also saying that women make less effective mentors for other women AND that male mentees are more beneficial to work w.
The idea that women mentors are less successful bc of the quality of their mentorship is garbage. If people view women/women mentorships as being lessor, it's bc of the reasons suggested above--the relationships of women that work together are viewed through a different lens.
The data presented in this paper is weird ("big shot experience"-UGH") & the author's interpretations are bad. The brief "...or maybe it's sexism?! Who can say? Out of our scope!" at the end is so glib. This should NEVER have been published with such a weak & lopsided discussion
