Stuart Taylor: Feminist Hypocrisy, Inaccuracy about S.T.E.M. Hiring
October 28th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.To this article by Stuart Taylor, I have little to add (National Journal, 10/24/09). It seems that the campaign by feminists against men in academia continues. Needless to say, it is a campaign based on sex; many men, after all, agree with and promote feminist values and support feminist positions on many issues. They should be aware that when it comes to holding an academic job, they are every bit as much in the feminist crosshairs as anyone else with a... well, you know.
Not content with women being 58% of undergraduate enrollees or earning the same number of post-graduate degrees or making up the vast majority of faculty members in Education and the humanities, feminists are now declaring that S.T.E.M. (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) faculty positions must also be distributed equally between men and women. They make no mention of achievement or ability, only sex.
As Taylor makes clear, this is a "disparity equals sexism" argument. Feminists, and apparently the Obama Administration, hold as a self-evident truth that men and women have equal aptitudes required to excel in the S.T.E.M. fields. That that is contradicted by a good deal of neuroscience troubles them not at all. Neither do studies that show that, while men are disproportionately represented at the extremes of high and low functioning in, for example mathematical aptitude, women tend to group in the middle. Because academic positions in math tend to demand only the highest-level functioning, it's reasonable for those jobs to be held predominantly by men.
But acknowledging what's reasonable is not exactly the goal of the feminists who are now demanding strictly equal outcomes in S.T.E.M. academic hiring. I say 'now' because, if other academic disciplines are any indication, female majorities in any of those fields will immediately result in feminists reversing course and ignoring gender inequalities in hiring.
And that brings me to my first quibble with Taylor. He rightly points out the fact that feminists pretend that disparity in outcome can only result from anti-female sexism. But he neglects to add that once women become the majority in a particular field, their complaints vanish. Their hypocrisy should escape no one. If, as they claim, disparity is necessarily the product of sexism, then male minorities in the humanities must necessarily indicate anti-male bias. But feminists neglect to mention that.
More important than feminist hypocrisy, which is as familiar and unwanted as your crazy aunt in the attic, is the simple fact that, if there's sexism in S.T.E.M. areas of academia, someone ought to be able to prove it. Taylor omits this point.
Where is the evidence that any academic department anywhere has refused to hire or promote a woman because of her sex? Is there a single example? Is there a single memo circulated among the members of a hiring committee discouraging the employment of women? And what's the explanation for the fact that so many colleges and universities have male-dominated S.T.E.M. departments? Is it a conspiracy? Where's the evidence of that?
As I never tire of pointing out, employment discrimination on the basis of sex is against the law. Where's the proof that colleges and universities across the country are violating state and federal statutes forbidding discrimination based on sex? And where is the evidence that this pervasive discrimination occurs in S.T.E.M. departments but somehow in no others? Someone show me a single shred.
Of course there's not one. And that's not just my opinion, it's the clear finding of not one but two separate studies that have come out within the last six months, both of which I've blogged about here and here.
The first was a study by a group of researchers at Cornell led by Dr. Stephen Ceci; the second was done for a congressional committee. Both were studies into hiring and promotion in S.T.E.M. academic employment. Both found an entire lack of discrimination against women. Both found that men and women were hired equally, paid equally and promoted equally. Both found that the only difference between the sexes came when women dropped out to attend to the requirements of childcare while men stayed on the job. That resulted in greater advancement, hirer earnings and greater seniority in the long run for men.
The only way that anyone would hang her hat on disparity in result to "prove" discrimination is if there was no other evidence. And that, of course, is the case here.
With those two minor quibbles, kudos to Stuart Taylor.
"));
19 queries. 0.424 seconds.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I am with the feminists on this one.. in fact, I am far across the feminists on this one.
Let all STEM and every other faculty at all state universities be populated by feminist women professors. It would be much better that way.
100% female faculty NOW!
October 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
when or why isn't anything being done about the decline of men in college?.....yet itsthe feminists getting the headlines
October 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
If logic and reason are tools of the patriarchy, does that mean women embracing STEP careers have been brainwashed?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Pankaj Says:
"Let all STEM and every other faculty at all state universities be populated by feminist women professors. It would be much better that way. 100% female faculty NOW!"
But why stop there? I believe that a study done on the military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would reveal a severe disparity in the number of female soldiers versus male soldiers. Since this is now a "Woman's Nation" shouldn't they make up at least 50% of the forces serving there?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“I say 'now' because, if other academic disciplines are any indication, female majorities in any of those fields will immediately result in feminists reversing course and ignoring gender inequalities in hiring.” Nursing departments, with 100% female faculty, advertise for female faculty applicants to “promote diversity”. Luther Christman has written for years about EEO ignoring nursing. The latest Johnson and Johnson advertisement for nursing educators uses the pronoun “she” when referring to nursing educators. It is a case of what is mine is mine, and what is yours is half mine.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
"Where is the evidence that any academic department anywhere has refused to hire or promote a woman because of her sex? Is there a single example? "
There is no immediately available evidence because sexism in hiring and promotion, as practiced by the entrenched patriarchy in American universities to oppress and subjugate qualified female candidates, is a grossly under-reported crime.
It is second only to rape in the rate at which is is under-reported. Females, terrorized by abusive male bosses and colleagues, fear retribution if they report these violations of the law and so do not.
The fact that there is no evidence for it proves beyond any doubt whatever that this is happening everywhere. The government must step in immediately to stop and reverse this egregious travesty of justice.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
"when or why isn't anything being done about the decline of men in college?.....yet itsthe feminists getting the headlines"
Because fathers aren't writing letters to the deans and regents explaining why their children won't be attending their college. Today, I wouldn't waste my time or money at many, many US colleges or universities. I'd probably go into a skilled trade that couldn't be offshored or look abroad for both (real) education and opportunity. If I couldn't go abroad, I wouldn't waste my time seeking a position with a US corporation that will always expect more from a man than his female co-workers, yet will always give preferential treatment- in everything from leave to promotions- to the women. Think about starting your own business (perhaps with some good mates).
To the young men reading this- don't rush. Your desirability, status, and power (not to mention your confidence/skillz) in the dating/mating market increases every year. Be picky, and choose wisely. You deserve it. Although good women don't last long on the dating/mating scene because they know how to find, attract, and keep good men, there is a constantly replenishing supply of them.
Conserve your resources for yourself because, heaven knows, women aren't going to help you or care about you. You have to take care of yourself. Which is OK. Much easier than taking on the responsibilities of supporting a family. Let the women who prefer The State as husband and father go their own way.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
During my civil rights training at an academic institution where I was previously employed, I noted that discrimination based on gender was prohibited. However "affirmative action" was required when "protected groups" were under-represented. Women are a protected group. Men are not. Thus academic programs in which women are under-represented are required to have a plan to remedy the disparity. However academic programs in which men are under-represented are not required to do anything. This was true for the student body as well as for the faculty.
The net effect of this is to increase the overall female:male ratio, already at around 58:42 of the student body. And the plan was to move the nearly balanced female:male ratio of the faculty out of balance, favoring women. The administration of this college was around 70% female.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I one time heard and explaination about how the government collects estate tax revenue. Imagine an orange. The state cuts the orange in half. Then, rather than taking one half and leaving the other half, they squeeze out every last drop of juice and leave the pulp.
The only thing greater then feminisms need and greed is how lazy they are. I suspect that there are feminists that feel that every indoor, safe, secure job with the government job is a feminist plum entitlement while every outdoor, dangerous, and risky job is for men. Franklin is spot on when he points out that women have clustered into pink collar herds that now dominate college and various industries. They need these jobs because they have already self selected themselves out of more lucerative careers.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:01 am
"Since this is now a "Woman's Nation" shouldn't they make up at least 50% of the forces serving there?"
Well - matters of war are very very serious matters, where people die.. so I would not kid about that. But it would not be a bad idea to create a experimental regiment out of all feminists and send them over to Afghanistan. Either, the Taliban would surrender (Just imagine a angry feminist shouting down a Kalashnikov toting Afghan).. and there would be peace in the USA.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I think the women are severely under-represented in the distinguished field of alimony-paying. They only make 4% of these lucky individuals. We must legislate laws that ensure that they rightfully take up 50% of the spots.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:37 am
There is some valid point made has to explain the disparity of women in the fields of pure science some believe it favors the way men brain is wired or something along those lines
but the feminist could have a legitimate reason to demand more encouragement for young girl lets say if we get the more intelligent girls to apply then the Universities would have a bigger pool of talent to choose from and the outcome would be better qualified scientist.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The smartest people in the world will always be mostly men. The stupidest people in the world will always be mostly men. It is just biology, just like only women get pregnant.
The IQ bell curve for men has a higher standard deviation than the IQ bell curve for women.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:15 am
john asked 10/28@:
"when or why isn't anything being done about the decline of men in college?.....yet itsthe feminists getting the headlines"
The public's deepening awareness (finally!) of the decline of men in college and the overall boy crisis in education is why feminists are fighting to get the headlines. Emboldened by a sycophantic administration and nearing what they see as the endgame for permanent female dominance, predictably they go on the attack. A complete take over of education has always been the linchpin of their machinations--as far back as the 60s. Co-opting the STEM faculty is a (feinted?) mating attack designed to take the steam out of any pro-male initiative and/or achieve final victory.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
"Feminists, and apparently the Obama Administration, hold as a self-evident truth that men and women have equal aptitudes required to excel in the S.T.E.M. fields. That that is contradicted by a good deal of neuroscience troubles them not at all. "
Not really comfortable with this.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:10 am
women will deserve to be treated equal when they are willing to register for selective service as 18 year men are by law.
When the feminist are willing to die for the freedoms and liberty and equality they demand and when they are required by law to register for selective service as men are, then they earn a bit more reasoning to be taken seriously or listened to.
but as many here speak of, what's theirs is their's and whats our is half theirs also; and they don't want equality - they want superiority; women want all the rewards without any of the risk involved in their free-will, free-choice decisions.
to all the women - that just aint how life is no matter how hard you try to make it.
these are common elements in everything they do.
disclaimer: this does not apply to all women of course, but, even those women who observe their fellow females doing harm to their families, children, etc...and remain silent -you all aid and assist with the end result by remaining silent.
now there are generations of grandmothers whose sons are being denined their kids, which means grandma cant see her grandkids, and these very same grandmothers sat by silently while the mothers around them took full advantage of a court system which allowed them to plunder their ex-husband and their childrens father.
these silent grandmothers (who were young mothers at one time) are now reaping what they sewed themselves or allowed to be sewed around them because they were silent or took advantage of the court system themselves.
all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing or remain silent.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Its affirmative action, it doesn't work and everyone will suffer for it. It will force the schools to hire for quota instead of ability and merit. consequently our kids will be paying a premium for a a second rate education compromised by political agenda.
Sad.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Its affirmative action, it doesn't work and everyone will suffer for it. It will force the schools to hire for quota instead of ability and merit. consequently our kids will be paying a premium for a a second rate education compromised by political agenda.
It's bad enough corporations have fled and are still fleeing developed countries like the US, Canada, and Britain in search of cheaper technological labor, but to force a system in which something like gender takes precedence over merit would quickly erode any stake we've made up to now in the field of sciences and engineering.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
When I see that same amount of effort put into increasing the number of men in overall admissions, as well as students in education, health sciences, humanities, etc., then I'll listen to the feminazis. When feminists start objecting to the fact that women make up a huge majority in the workforce at colleges and universities, and demand gender parity, then I'll listen to the feminazis. When we have some credible initiatives to get women to share equally in the responsibilities of defending our country, then I'll listen to the feminazis.
Until then, I say screw 'em.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Dave said:
"But why stop there? I believe that a study done on the military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would reveal a severe disparity in the number of female soldiers versus male soldiers. Since this is now a "Woman's Nation" shouldn't they make up at least 50% of the forces serving there?"
Uhhh, Dave - AS a member of the armed forces who has been to Iraq twice and is scheduled to go to Afghanistan (in a year or two) - please don't give these whackos any more "bright ideas".
Most of the women I serve with are excellent Soldiers who fully realize their limitations as to size, endurance, and strength - they're practical, but willing to do what they can do, and they do so professionally. My sister who wear the cloth of our nation are honorable and hard working souls.
Now, that said - some are lazy, opportunistic princesses who want advancement while living in the CITY sized bases that have indoor and outdoor pools and want no part of that scary place outside the wire.
It sorts itself out for the most part - the "daisies" (both male and female) screwups stay inside the wire while me and mine do the "cowboy" missions outside the wire.
But please don't give the DACOWITZ idiots any more ammo to put women who can't cut it in the line of fire to "make a point". First off I don't want any American who wears the uniform to fall "to make a point", but neither, on a practical basis, do I want my flank left uncovered by someone who won't or can't cover it.
Just my opinion.
Steven
October 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
elite fighting force composed of misandrous women only, trained by the navy seals, army rangers, and any marine standing, armed to the teeth, sent into combat with our express permission to kill all the enemy men they want. they get to do what they have expressed every interest in doing, well even pin a medal on them. our men here safer, total positive outcome all around. certainly no lack of conflict on the planet, we can keep them busy abroad forever.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
This has a lot to do with the liberal/feminist mantra that there are no innate differences between men and women. Evolutionary psychologists (both men and women) have spoken about their bitter battles with liberal academia, who believe that any claims of differences between people (no matter how scientifically valid those claims are) are tantamount to racism. Liberal/Marxist academia has been working full steam for years to whittle us all down to their totalitarian version of 'equality,' and they're winning.
Of course, these liberal/Marxist academics are elitists themselves, so they fail to see their own hypocrisy. They're content to rely on hearsay and emotionalism to further their pseudo academic agendas, all the while gaining tenure and huge government grants to perform idiotic studies like measuring people's 'happiness.'
Truly, truly ludicrous.
Liberal academia's version of 'equality' means we're all equally STUPID. For the past twenty years, anything but a degree in the hard sciences has been absolutely worthless. Five years from now, a degree in the hard sciences will be worthless as well.
And let's not forget what liberal academia has done to the public school system; turning it into a therapy-based, feel-good experiment where boys are drugged into submission and forced 'diversity' appreciation has taken the place of learning and discipline. Anyone with half a brain would do well to steer their kids far away from these Maoist factories.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Navy seals training for misandrous women? LoL! Only if you can get beyond the cries of "physical exertion is sexist!"
October 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Eric Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
During my civil rights training at an academic institution where I was previously employed, I noted that discrimination based on gender was prohibited. However "affirmative action" was required when "protected groups" were under-represented. Women are a protected group. Men are not.
---
I actually have not read anywhere that women are a "protected class". My readings lead me to believe that where any demographic is under-represented deans have a duty to take some form of corrective action.
By not taking action on behalf of men, they are breaking their oaths and code of conduct. But, they can obviously do so as these deans know who butters their bread: many peer groups and tenure committee's are headed overwhelmingly by feminist leaning persons.
However, Title IX specifically has gender-neutral language. And I know that feminists are rabidly in favor of applying that to STEM enrollment. If that were the case, couldn't male students sue for non-inclusion into journalism and the humanitites, nursing classes at any time they felt like they were forcibly excluded?
Even now, male students should be able to sue if they are excluded from an extra-curricular activity (like drama, plays, school newspaper etc...) where males are in the minority.
If there are any college-bound men here I would start spreading the word that a Title IX lawsuit could be the quick way to easy street. If women from Columbia can bring frivilous multi-million dollar lawsuits that stop male sports scholarships, then maybe new suits by men held out of the school paper or plays will help bring this issue into a swift 180 degree and bring a new magnifying lens onto anti-male histeria at college.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
good point from dave...see above...a woman's nation should make the military 50%...and why not include contstruction jobs!
October 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
ATTN Robert
Either my browser's playing up or there is no link to the article. It can be found here...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20091024_6967.php
October 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
They can't change biology. Men are more laid back and are simply better at alot of things. Furthermore, most women, to a lesser or greater extent, define themselves by how much tap-dancing they can make men do. Men will win out in this no matter what. It's just a matter of how many people suffer until things start to re-balance. The average young American woman is partly neurotic, slipping between "you go girl! offended by everything" to outright "slutty or whorish behavior". They don't know how to be mature and functional women. A bunch of grown up bodies with children's brains. If men ever get even an inkling of collective action it's over for our neurotic friends within a few years. I like to beieve that, despite the discrimination they face, that the young boys today are growing up with a more advanced female BS detector than we had. I think they will, even if we fail, reclaim the respected place of men in society.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Chris D Says:
"I like to beieve that, despite the discrimination they face, that the young boys today are growing up with a more advanced female BS detector than we had. I think they will, even if we fail, reclaim the respected place of men in society."
I agree. IMHO, the rapidly declining marriage rate among young people is just one indicator of their more advanced BS detector.
Nature has a way of balancing things out.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Why is it always supposed to be a 50/50 split, shouldn't it reflect the population at large?
When I have the equal right to be a stay at home father I will fully support woman's right to equal opportunities in the workplace. The fact is that men are treated with suspicion when it comes to being a domestic god and child carer, society isn't ready to accept men, in a traditionally woman's role, so why is it imperative that women are accepted in the traditional male role.
Equality is a two way street.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If you look at:
http://www.genderbiasbingo.com/index.html (Paid for with tax dollars, you will discover that bias can only occur against women.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
If anyone cares to look, female psychology doctoral graduates are the majority. I just graduated and 75% of my class was female. Guess who produces the research statistics are built on for DV? I got talked to for calling a female colleague on blatant sexism ( she claimed male gay prison rape victims were not as traumatized as female prison rape vicitms because the guys were "used to it"). I have attended DV training in which men were considered to be primary offenders because of male privilege over-riding female abilities. The real statistics were declared to be questionable orflaze becasue they didn't come from a feminist author. This was taught by a male instructor. If you want to complain about poor research and those using it, look to the source; RESEARCHERS who happen to be training the next batch of researchers.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:19 am
There is a push for "women's hiring euality" and "women in science and technology" especially in Eastern Canada, where they love government handouts. Womens equlality NGO's, that are for women ONLY to take advantage of empolyment and training programs are run SOLEY by female staff. Un-equal hiring practices in their own backyard isn't "gender bias" in their eyes, it's their "right" for all the inequality women suffer. The number of programs getting free handouts for women-only programs is obsene.