A “very disturbing report” has been published on how women and men are discussed in an anonymous online economics forum. From today’s New York Times coverage:
“The 30 words most uniquely associated with discussions of women make for uncomfortable reading … hotter, lesbian, bb (internet speak for “baby”), sexism, tits, anal, marrying, feminazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit, intentions, sexy, dated and prostitute.”
The forum is defended by an economics professor at Harvard, who has described it on his blog as “a throwing off of the shackles of political correctness.”
2 thoughts on ““Evidence of a toxic environment for women in economics””
I wonder if the site for economists she studied is anything like as bad as the recent philosophy meta’s. I just check out the latest version. Really nasty stuff about trans people. And so juvenile.
This is purely anecdotal, but from what I’ve seen EJR is in a better state than PSR, which is in a better state than the metas were before they adopted the JR forum format. But the levels of trolling and eye-popping comments don’t seem very constant; they ebb and flow. The present iteration of the metas is a vast improvement on the previous ones, but the tide of dross is rising. PSR was quiet for the last few months, but is ramping up the hate and trolling once again (especially since one of the main moderators just gave up). EJR seems like it’s in the middle for now.
Comments are closed.