Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
To be frank, I was rather surprised that somebody would even question it at all. Ever since a school boy, I had never doubted that women (or girls) were much better than men (boys) in everything having to do with language, and that impression has never been challenged by any adverse experience (I'm over 50 now). Surely there must be heaps of substantiating statistical material (school notes per subject vs. gender, student gender ratio vs. subject, intelligence tests for various intelligence types vs. gender, etc) lying around? Waruno Mahdi Faradayweg 4-6 14195 Berlin Germany tel. +49 30 8413 5407 fax. +49 30 8413 3155 email: warunoMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueparadox.rz-berlin.mpg.de http://calamity.rz-berlin.mpg.de/~waruno/ _________________________________________
Marc Picard asks in Linguist 6.1544 why women are under-represented in Indo-European and Nostratic. Certainly, I can't explain this. However, my impression is that the under-representation is in areas involving comparative reconstruction. At the 1987 workshop on comparative reconstruction that Phil Baldi organized at the Stanford institute, there were, as I recall, 4 women out of 50 participants; and three of those were in the Amerindian group. As the fourth, I have to say that I have never felt anything but encouragement from men in the field. However, throughout my graduate training, I got a very strong message that what I was doing somehow wasn't really linguistics. And, given the current job market for historical linguists...As to why women might be more discouraged by the job market than men are (if that's even the explanation for the disparity), I couldn't say. All I know is that when I was in grad school, there were three other women in the program who were doing historical/comparative work, two in Indo-European and two in Semitic. One did not complete the program; the other three of us did, and, even though my primary employment involves a specialization other than historical linguistics, I'm the only one of us who continues to publish in the area, however sporadically. Alice FaberMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
although several anecdotal reports on the proportion of women in linguistics have been posted, i'm surprised that no one has yet brought up the cornell lectures on women in linguistics. while there are more women students than men, it seems that (at least in the 80s) there are fewer women in entry level positions in linguistics departments. for instance, davison, chicocki, and silva (1990) reported that in 1986-7 56.7% of PhDs in linguistics were awarded to women, but in 1989 there were twice as many men as women in assistant professor positions at the "top 17" linguistics programs in the u.s. on the other hand, there were more women in part-time and non-tenure-track positions than men. in comparing the top 17 to other linguistics departments, the more prestigious schools had greater proportions of women in part-time positions (70% vs. 50%), but lower proportions of women at assistant and associate prof levels (around 33% vs. 43%). the committee on the status of women in linguistics is trying to track these numbers and find out what causes the discrepancies between the proportion of women with PhDs in linguistics and the proportion of those with jobs in linguistics. they recently sent out two surveys on the matter: one aimed at individuals in order to track career paths, and one aimed at departments. there are lots of things that could account for the lower proportion of women in these positions (vs. the number getting degrees), such as whether women are more likely to go into subfields that are more or less prestigious or "central" to linguistics, or whether more women than men are limited in their job searches by family commitments. is the proportion of women in entry-level, tenure-track positions roughly the same as the proportion of job seekers who are women? i don't know whether they're still collecting data for that survey, but kira hall was organizing it. i assume there will be some kind of report at the COSWL meeting at the LSA in san diego this year. reference: davison, alice, walter chicocki, and david silva. 1990. the representation of women in linguistics 1989. in alice davison and penny eckert (eds.), the cornell lectures: women in the linguistics profession. washington, dc: committee on the status of women, linguistic society of america. [highly recommended collection--sent to many linguistics depts, so yours might have a copy, but perhaps still available from the lsa.] lynne murphy M. Lynne Murphy 104lynMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuemuse.arts.wits.ac.za Department of Linguistics phone: 27(11)716-2340 University of the Witwatersrand fax: 27(11)716-4199 Johannesburg 2050 SOUTH AFRICA