Gender issues

In an effort to avoid finger-pointing and defensiveness, those studying prejudice -- the tendency to pre-judge others, usually based on stereotypes -- moved away from the term prejudice, which came to be associated with dislike, hostility, and intentional harm, to the term bias: prejudice, but not necessarily with the dislike, hostility, or intention. Bias is still an ugly word, and researchers went further to use "implicit bias" (or "hidden bias," "unconscious bias," "subtle bias," "modern ___ism," and "second-generation bias") to convey the unwitting nature of many of our prejudices. Rather than bad we are misled, by a world that conditions us to more quickly associate certain characteristics with certain groups (see for example, the IAT ) because groups differ in social status and roles.* The concept of implicit bias has helped us make great strides in accepting and facing our prejudices. It has helped move the discussion a

The UBC Alumni Association hosted a panel discussion last night of why there aren't more women in leadership roles. Gloria Macarenko moderated the discussion with myself, Maninder Dhaliwal , Anne Giardini , John Montalbano & Martha Piper as panelists. We were given one minute to address the following question: For decades women have been fighting for workplace equality, and in many sectors, progress has been made. But in boardrooms and executive offices across the country, there remains a noticeable absence of women in senior leadership positions. What lies behind this gender imbalance? Is it due to deeply-ingrained biases by those making the appointments? Or are some women choosing to forgo leadership opportunities for career paths that offer greater flexibility? I wrote up my opening comments (below). It'd be nice to have a transcript of the other panelists' comments -- it was a great discussion! You can listen to the podcast here . ~ My answer to the question of