This morning my debut in @Slate with @DomRussel: We analyzed the comments on that atrocious @WSJ #DrJillBiden Op-Ed and what we found tells an all-too familiar story about sexism, academia, and the experiences of women who dare to be themselves. https://slate.com/business/2020/12/jill-biden-op-ed-wall-street-journal-dr-analysis-sexism.html

Inspired by @EpiEllie question about how men and women received the #DrJillBiden op-ed, @DomRussel and I had an idea to look at the comment section of the @WSJ and use first names a (imperfect) proxy for gender. What we found is pretty damning. Let's get into it.

What we found using, a predictive model, were the words that were most predictive of men v. women and as you can see below... women peeped the sexism and misogny more so than men who didn't even see the problem in the first place (shoutout to @DomRussel for this):

We took it one step further and said "okay so what is the breakdown of commenters by gender who even acknowledged any of these terms: sexism, sexist, misogyny, and misogynyistic.... and uh.... yeah, men commenters really didn't peep it AT ALL. @DomRussel again with the analysis.

So why does it matter that @WSJ allows out of pocket takes steeped in sexism to be published? Well it matters for a couple reasons.

1) For one thing, women in any job, but especially #academia @AcademicChatter, should not be made to feel less about their training. Never ever.

2) The fact that WSJ published this and then doubled down means that they don't see sexism and that it is clearly an editor blindspot. Perhaps this is the case because the two op-ed editors are white and male? Just a suggestion. We're probably right though.

3) WSJ doubling down also means that this is business as usual, and women, ESPECIALLY in Academia, know that business as usual often results in sexism, racism, toxicity, and sometimes, all three at once depending on who you are because ~workplace culture~ as @MindaHarts notes.

We end on this powerful note: In #DrBiden, choosing to be unapologetically herself as an educator, practitioner, mother, wife, grandmother, and now first lady, she is showing women that they can occupy whatever space they choose as their full selves.

Knock 'em dead, Doc.

Huge thanks to @Slate as well as @Tinu and @polumechanos for their honest feedback on our article. We appreciate you. And please please please go follow my amazing co-author @DomRussel.

Huge thanks to @JHWeissmann, the forever plug, and the awesome @jon_fischer (our editor) who made this come alive. We love to see this @Slate debut and many many more to come.

Almost forgot to thank @HPSInsight for helping us pitch and edit this article as well! We love support.

#EconTwitter if you liked the Alice Wu paper, this is basically Alice Wu Part 2 cc @JustinWolfers awesome coverage of her research. #PredocResearch

Y'all are really doing a number on this article. Keep sharing and talking about it, we are now the top result when you look up (Dr.) Jill Biden @DrBiden:

Let's go @DomRussel. Wooooooo! #EconTwitter #rstats

#EconTwitter #data #RStats There are two types of economics analysis: The one that seems to be superfluous at best, but is ultimately harmful to underrepresented groups; and the one that aims to bring attention to important issues that help us understand our world better.

I want to say that huge thank you to everyone who shared our article. It article being so well received is very exciting and I hope that you all will take some time today to check out the work of my co-author and the source of our analysis: @DomRussel. http://dominic-russel.netlify.app 

@threadreaderapp unroll please