Gaslighting in STEM Workplaces - A Silent Battle
Oh, the gaslighting. The trust-and-respect gut buster.
In STEM fields, where precision and evidence are paramount, the covert undermining of women's contributions through gaslighting remains a pervasive issue. This psychological manipulation forces women to question their capabilities and achievements, further exacerbating the gender disparity in these critical sectors.
The Salk Institute Case: Systemic Undermining
At the Salk Institute, Drs. Beverly Emerson, Victoria Lundblad, and Katherine Jones encountered a workplace environment that devalued their scientific contributions and hindered their advancement through discriminatory practices against female faculty. Despite their exceptional qualifications, they found themselves in a chauvinistic workplace culture that stifled their professional growth, exemplifying the systemic nature of gaslighting in STEM fields. Lundblad and her colleagues discovered a 'hopelessly chauvinistic' workplace stifled by 'stagnant discriminatory practices' against the female faculty. Their efforts to succeed at Salk were met with derision, and according to Lundblad, it soon became clear that Salk 'promoted [and] encouraged only males at the expense of female scientists who – small in number – [were] only reluctantly tolerated for public appearance reasons'".
The DataBank Case: Patricia Whitnah's Struggle for Equality
Patricia Whitnah faced discriminatory practices at DataBank IMX, including being paid less than her male counterparts and facing baseless accusations. Her attempts to address these issues were met with dismissal and retaliation, showcasing how gaslighting can manifest through the denial of experiences and contributions of women in STEM.
Ms. Whitnah also received fraudulent evaluations and PIPs in retaliation for her complaints about her treatment in the organization as a woman. After years of experiencing and witnessing discrimination against women at DataBank IMX, Ms. Whitnah asked Human Resources "to conduct some type of sexual harassment and discrimination training for DataBank employees." The CEO bullied Ms. Whitnah during this meeting and then, after the meeting, told Ms. Whitnah’s managers, 'We have to do something with Patty.' The meaning was clear Ms. Whitnah would be retaliated against for bringing gender bias and discrimination complaints against her employer.
Soon after the March 2021 meeting the CEO and other top leadership 'collaborated on a plan to assign Ms. Whitnah to a retaliatory and contrived PIP (performance improvement plan). This was despite her excellent employee review by her boss, Bill Holder, during this historic pandemic year.' ... 'Ms. Whitnah was told she was receiving the PIP because she did not make quota. But two other men who did not even achieve the quota that Ms. Whitnah had achieved did not receive a PIP. One of the men is still employed at DataBank IMX and receives a base pay of about double Ms. Whitnah’s base pay.' ... 'Despite having been told that Ms. Whitnah met the requirements of this PIP and having begged to have this PIP end at the direction of senior leadership the PIP was extended another 90 days.' It was clear the PIP was contrived".
The CareerSource Palm Beach County Case: Discrimination Under the Guise of Rumors
Yolanda Hernandez's termination from CareerSource Palm Beach County, based on unverified rumors of an affair with the former CEO, starkly contrasts with the treatment of male executives who were involved in similar or more egregious conduct but faced no consequences. This disparity not only questions Hernandez's professional integrity but also highlights the double standards that perpetuate gender discrimination in the workplace.
"Hernandez alleges that CareerSource fired her because of 'rumors that she was having an affair with the former CEO.' According to Hernandez, the CEO’s ex-wife believed that he and Hernandez were having an affair, and rumors of the alleged relationship spread at CareerSource. These rumors, Hernandez claims, ultimately led to her termination. Hernandez further alleges that 'male executives suspected of having affairs with subordinates in the organization were not fired and thus treated more favorably because of their gender than [she].' In support, Hernandez points to two comparators: (i) a male Vice President who 'was discovered by a cleaning worker having sex with a subordinate female employee in a conference room' and (ii) a male Chief Operating Officer who 'was rumored to be having an affair with a subordinate whom he married very shortly after his wife died.' CareerSource took no disciplinary action against either male employee".
The Impact of Gaslighting
Gaslighting in STEM fields has far-reaching effects on women's careers and mental health. It fosters an environment of self-doubt and diminishes self-esteem, contributing to the "leaky pipeline" phenomenon where women exit STEM fields due to hostile work environments. Addressing gaslighting requires systemic change, including transparent policies for addressing discrimination and fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect.
Combating Gaslighting in STEM
Organizations must create supportive environments that value women's contributions equally to eradicate gaslighting in STEM. Implementing equitable practices and addressing grievances transparently can pave the way for a more diverse and inclusive STEM community.
Again, spotlighting gaslighting and advocating for systemic change are crucial steps toward achieving gender equality in STEM. Acknowledging and addressing these issues can create a more inclusive and equitable environment for all.