I regret not giving my DCs unisex names

[darleneoconnor]

do other feminists?

After reading some stuff on how exam markers/recruiters discriminate based on perceived gender I feel like I've let my DC down.

DD does have a kind of strong sounding name but it's no Morgan.

We can't have a whole section just for 'oh the poor boys.'

It would have to be a more general section for all people who feel that some minority group or other is oppressing/silencing/threatening them.

I frequently want to tell people in AIBU who go on about gay people using their rights in public that they should get their own section.

re: the Winner / Loser anecdote I rememeber reading that people the name Dennis was more common among dentists than the general population, and similarly for other professions and names, but I can't remember which (Art the artist, Tina the teacher ?... )

Also in freakonomics (I think) the research on the correlation between having a black name like Shanequa versus a more 'upwardly mobile' name like Rebecca, and lifetime earnings and the reasons why parents choose a name even though it reduces their children's earning power.

On unisex names I don't think it is a big issue in terms of discrimination. Women are not falling behind men in promotion and earnings at the stage of qualification or recruitment but through the course of a career.

On the other hand maybe having a unisex name conveys to a girl that her parents think she can do anything a boy can do? Similarly is having a very 'girly' name like Dolly, Lola, Susie, Daisy associated with parents having a set idea about gender roles for girls?

MillyR Sat 21-May-11 18:53:19
TCL, No, I won't. I'm not hear to teach basic research skills in the social sciences. Look it up for yourself on the internet.

Ah - the standard response of someone who knows they cannot support what they are saying. If you were actually interested in engaging in discussion rather than just spouting off some half-baked theory, you would be happy to develop your point further. The defensiveness tells me all I need to know about how seriously I can take any of your points, thanks.

Right, i entered the words 'gender bias marking' into Google as instructed. the second hit tells me that:

"A literature review reveals that little if any sex bias has been found in UK national assessments at General Certificate Secondary Education (GCSE) mostly taken by 16 year olds and General Certificate of Education mostly taken by 18 year olds."

and that

"It was found that there was one question in the English examination which was biased by 0.5 of a mark in the favour of girls."

and

"It is concluded that sex bias should be monitored but is unlikely to be found."

Finally

"In conclusion sex and gender bias in marking is something which should be monitored in GCSE marking but it is unlikely to be found to an extent that affects grades. It appears that question papers should continue to be scrutinised for girl/boy friendly questions which should arguably be avoided. It appears that any differences in the severity and leniency of marking are due to the factors other than the examiner's sex and gender and/or the candidates' sex. Indeed the greatest source of variance was the candidates' achievement, which is as it should be."

Best practise at University is anonymous marking and so much of it is course work that handwriting doesn't come into it (has to be word processed).

What theory am I defending? I have never suggested I have any particular opinion on whether or not there is a gender bias in marking. As you have suggested it would not be possible to scientifically prove (although it is a Maths term, so perhaps you mean statistically prove) such a theory, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the research method is flawed.

It is ludicrous to suggest that I should have to explain a research method to you when you already claim to have such a good understanding of it that you are able to come to the conclusion it is invalid.

I'm not sure what you are claiming is a mathematical term.

The onus is not me to do anything. And it is not ludicrous to ask you to explain a research method which I have already admitted I do not have a good understanding of. That was why I asked you to explain how you would go about it, since you claimed that it was perfectly straightforward to do, and I could not see how it would be done. The fact that you simply get increasingly defensive about this suggests that in fact you cannot see how it would be done either.

I have said that I don't believe gender bias exists in marking. I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong. I cannot have come to the conclusion that your research method is invalid when I have no idea what it is, can I?

Perhaps I am. I will try and stay within the tone of this thread by wildly speculating on things that were never said or implied in the first place.

It is a disgrace that feminists are preventing boys from watching the Discovery Channel; it is probably because of their interest in French psychoanalysis.

I googled gender bias and tere doesn't seem to be a problem.I fail to see why there would be when I think that there must be more women markers than men, purely because it is a 'family friendly' way to earn money.

I wish that there would be a serious attempt to tackle boys under performing at school.

TCL, it generally is because I cannot be bothered. I did look up the research methods used by using google. You have said that you want somebody to explain to you how it was done. I think the writing of the actual researchers explains it better than I do. There are numerous links that you have now found and there is a literature review on the same google page. As you are pretty much the only person claiming the impossibility of such a task, I am not going to summarise research methods for you alone on an MN thread! It would take ages to type up and would be less clear than the original. Also I am watching a special edition of something and am only half concentrating on MN.

Proof is a mathematical term. Scientists do not claim to have proof of things.

Well possibly it is, but I am not going to start writing stuff up, as I am on MN to procrastinate from writing anything academic. I will have a panic attack if I have to write anything.

I also apologise for totally derailing this thread.

I have a son and a daughter. DS has had gender specific help at both primary and secondary school, including gendered resources from the LEA, so I assume that there is some effort to sort out underachievement. He was never underachieving in the first place. He was just average at writing.

DD has never had any kind of gendered resource for things she is average at, but then her (previous) head told me that although DD would never be really good in school work, she was the school's best dancer. I suppose she can satisfy herself with that; it is such a reliable career option.

'proof' can be a mathematical term. That is not, however, its sole definition and not even its first definition according to Chambers, which simply has 'evidence, especially conclusive evidence, that something is true or a fact' as its primary meaning.

I have looked gender bias up, and have found nothing which supports the claims on this thread that gender bias exists in exam marking. In fact, I have found research which concludes that it doesn't. And I should have learned by now that this section is not the place to come for interesting or intellectually rigorous debate and discussion...

Well yes, proof has an everyday meaning. But it isn't used in science, and the research is within the social sciences, so the researchers will not be claiming to have proved anything, as they must be using some variation of the scientific method.

So nobody can show you how they proved it; they never claimed to have done that.

I will miss your name. I might change mine to something Wizard of OZ themed. It is such a good idea.

I don't have an issue with true unisex names, but I don't like the fact that many girls names are just feminized versions of male names (including my own). If you then use a diminutive which is effectively the boys name then isn't that a way of making women invisible (like the discussion we had not long ago about calling mixed groups "guys")? I can see on an individual basis that having a male name might be helpful in some circumstances, but it would also hide female success, making it much harder for girls to find role models or to challenge the status quo by citing examples of success.

My niece is an academic and has a unisex name. She quite often appears on tv and radion, and lives in a state of constant mild irritation because researchers and people sent to meet her and so on don't notice her standing there because they are looking for "Dr Alex Smith" who is obviously going to be a man.

I think there is a much more interesing, although not particularly feminist, elephant in the room concerning names, though. Who gats the interview, Charlotte or Chardonnay?

I agree witht he posted who have said that there are really no unisex names - there are names traditionally given to boys which people now think are "cute" to give girls. Interestingly, once this happens,in a very short time they become names that people no longer give boys as they are "too girly" - Jocelyn are Hilary are good examples of this.

It never works the other way - nobody would give a boy a traditional girl's name just because they like the sound of it. This says a lot about how boys and girls are regarded in society. Male=norm. Female=deviation from norm.

I'm a teacher and mark GCSE papers. I cam see the name, and it makes no difference. The mark scheme is so strict that I cannot award marks as I please, it is not a "general feeling" type marking. I have to show that they have made a number of points, supported them with evidence etc.

I like having the name, but only because I "chat" to them as I mark!

And actually compared to the men/women ratio in teaching there are more.male markers, as it doesn't fit with children easily- most examiners are working teachers, and examining is intense and involves giving your life over to it entirely.

I have looked gender bias up, and have found nothing which supports the claims on this thread that gender bias exists in exam marking. In fact, I have found research which concludes that it doesn't. And I should have learned by now that this section is not the place to come for interesting or intellectually rigorous debate and discussion...

It is sad that you are going. I think that you have made excellent points, TheCowardlyLion, unfortunately they don't fit with this board. I have googled quite extensively and t seems to me that there is no evidence at all for gender bias in marking.

but I don't like the fact that many girls names are just feminized versions of male names (including my own). If you then use a diminutive which is effectively the boys name then isn't that a way of making women invisible (like the discussion we had not long ago about calling mixed groups "guys")?

And I think this is utterly pathetic! Does either of it matter a jot?! Any Alex that I have know has been quite forceful-they certainly haven't been invisible!

Men must be laughing when women spend so much time worrying about trivialities!
They wouldn't be blaming poor exam results on the examiner seeing the name on the paper.
Unisex names (put forward here) either come from the feminised version(e.g. Alexander or Alexandra) or they have been 'pinched' from men e.g. Rowan. Some female names have just changed sides, e.g. Hilary is more commonly a woman now. Or they are surnames, e.g. Morgan.

Names have a long history-for women to blot them out and make some up because they don't like the history seems sad to me. Hoards of lovely names would have to be abandoned.