ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, July 02, 2015

Stamping out sexism in science

Nature has a few ideas on that score. And if we lose a few male Nobel Laureates along the way, what does it matter? After all, the vast influx of female talent that is certain to replace the old sexist dinosaurs will more than make up for any losses, right?
The problem is serious and long-standing. But there are plenty of ways to tackle it. Nature has discussed and promoted them before, and is happy to do so again. Here is a list of measures to consider afresh:
  • Recognize and address unconscious bias. Graduate students given grants by the US National Institutes of Health are required to undergo ethics training. Gender-bias training for scientists, for example, would be a powerful way to help turn the tide.
  • Encourage universities and research institutions to extend the deadlines for tenure or project completion for scientists (women and men) who take parental leave, and do not penalize these researchers by excluding them from annual salary rises. Many workplaces are happy to consider and agree to such extension requests when they are made. The policy should simply be adopted across the board.
  • Events organizers and others must invite female scientists to lecture, review, talk and write articles. And if the woman asked says no — for whatever reason — then ask others. This is about more than mere visibility. It can boost female participation too. Anecdotal reports suggest that women are more likely to ask questions in sessions chaired by women. After acknowledging our own bias towards male contributors, Nature, for example, is engaged in a continued effort to commission more women in our pages.
  • Do not use vocabulary and imagery that support one gender more than another. Words matter. It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’, or to ensure that photographs and illustrations feature women.
  • In communication and promotional materials, highlight women who have made key contributions to previous work, whether in your own lab or within your research discipline more broadly.
  • Be aware of the importance of informal settings and social activities to workplace culture, and people’s sense of their place within it. Senior scientists can, where possible, make such events inclusive.
Can one really say the Law of Unintended Consequences applies when the consequences of a proposed action are so entirely obvious to anyone with half a brain? How many Shakespeares, Dantes, or even JRR Tolkiens have been produced since since the liberation of women from the male oppression that forcibly prevented them from putting pen to paper 40, or 80, or 97 years ago?

And what is the price of trading a few Watsons and Hunts for the scientific equivalents of Stephanie Meyers and E.L. James going to be?

Now, obviously I support women in science; I publish more female scientists than 99.9 percent of my critics do. But I don't support female thought police in science, which is really what Nature is advocating here. It is the thought police, of both sexes, who truly have NO PLACE whatsoever in science.

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 02, 2015 6:59 AM  

There is never going to be any proper feminist progress on this front until we face the fact that science itself must change. All this logical cold deduction and measurement stuff.

There is nowhere near enough emotional content. There is nowhere near enough feelings!

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 02, 2015 7:06 AM  

Not even the conservatives can save liberalism now, the pace it too fast for the fuddy duddies of "nice" conservatism to keep up. I doubt even George Will the face of establishment respectable conservatism is all that comfortable with this climate of purity of Political Correctness.

Very slightly off topic, I think the old reactionary we can save 'Murka by voting GOP conservatives should do Mark Zuckerberg a favor and save him from the diversity over all libtards that are noticing the lack of diversity at FB.

Anonymous Bz July 02, 2015 7:06 AM  

There is NO PLACE in Biology for sexism.

Anonymous Mike M. (Minion 315) July 02, 2015 7:09 AM  

I wouldn't say Thought Police have no place in science. We can always use more lab rats and crash test dummies.

But they cannot have a place in policy.

Anonymous Bz July 02, 2015 7:15 AM  

Rig the game even more in favour of women, that will surely fix things. Double down harder.

An underlying issue is of course that Academia is severely overpopulated and has been for decades, with institutional participants paid to relentlessly increase the overpopulation. That's why there are postdoc drudges and barefoot lecturers well into their forties. No matter, it will all work out, I'm sure.

"Et in Academia Ego"

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 02, 2015 7:21 AM  

I thought over what I just wrote and now I'm a little worried.

I forgot something important.

Satire is dead.

Blogger CM July 02, 2015 7:22 AM  

Anecdotal reports suggest that women are more likely to ask questions in sessions chaired by women.

Sounds like women need some unconcious gender bias training to make them ask more questions of male scientists.

How bout we just cut to the chase and bring back Salons? Clearly, women only want to converse with and learn from women.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 02, 2015 7:23 AM  

Affirmative action for female scientists.

What could possibly go wrong?

Blogger pyrrhus July 02, 2015 7:31 AM  

I support women in science if they are good scientists and don't cry or complain when their work is criticized......which is not that many....

Anonymous Anonymous July 02, 2015 7:32 AM  

What is the scientific basis for the assertion that gender bias training would have powerful effects?

DM

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P July 02, 2015 7:33 AM  

Nice. The first point implies that gender bias is an ethics issue, and it deteriorates from there.

Had a similar argument with someone in work recently.

"we need more women in science" they declared.
"Why", I respond.
"Because there arent enough women in science".
"Thats a circular argument. What do women bring to the table specifically that men dont, that we require more of them?"
"There arent enough women in science!"

/facepalm

Anonymous MPC July 02, 2015 7:34 AM  

It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’, or to ensure that photographs and illustrations feature women.

"Goddammit man, we don't have a woman around today and the suits are *demanding* a new photo for our social media page! We've got to demonstrate we're not letting our unconscious bias exclude women or they'll pull our funding again!"

"But where are all the women anyway?"

"They're on maternal leave. Dumb broads got knocked up by the janitors."

"Ah, shit. Okay, just throw a lab coat on Mindy the receptionist and let's hope that nobody notices."

(Later on, a picture is uploaded with three people: two older scientists, striking dignified poses and some rather pained looking smiles. Mindy is alongside them, flashing a gang sign and the duck face. Underneath is the caption, "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY AND WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND DIVERSITY." 3 Likes.)

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 July 02, 2015 7:35 AM  

Lists like that herald the entry of people who don't give a damn about the place they're invading. All they care about is destroying is men, whites, and Christians.

Blogger skiballa July 02, 2015 7:41 AM  

"produced since since the liberation"

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 02, 2015 7:44 AM  

You gents are fighting the Jim Jones cult with logic and reason, good luck with that.

Blogger Salt July 02, 2015 7:51 AM  

avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’

Okay.

"It put the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."

Anonymous Stingray July 02, 2015 7:55 AM  

Feminists have made women so weak, behind a banner of strong and independent. It makes me sick.

Anonymous john grady July 02, 2015 7:56 AM  

Well, this sort of development will play a substantial factor in popping the educational bubble in the US.

Anonymous Giuseppe July 02, 2015 7:58 AM  

Fuck all this bullshit.
When is it going to be legal to actually shoot the zombies? Because we're clearly in full apocalypse mode.
Toothless and slow they may be, but zombies all the same.

Blogger njartist July 02, 2015 8:00 AM  

The power of the intellect is reduced when the reins of one's mind are in another's hands,

Anonymous john grady July 02, 2015 8:10 AM  

"How many Shakespeares, Dantes, or even JRR Tolkiens have been produced since since the liberation of women from the male oppression that forcibly prevented them from putting pen to paper 40, or 80, or 97 years ago?"

Women need patriarchal "oppression" to produce, especially male Catholic (and Anglo Catholic) bishops to do the "oppressing." Women who've submitted to the patriarchy have produced great and powerful written works from St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese of Liseux, Jane Austen, and Elizabeth Anscombe. They follow the one who said, "Let it be done to me according to thy Word" in contrast to the current shrieks of "non serviam" by liberated women today.

Anonymous clk July 02, 2015 8:18 AM  

" I publish more female scientists than 99.9 percent of my critics do"

-- can you show the math on that claim please ? Is it because 0 of your critics are science publishers so with one female scientist you got them beat ? Dont sell yourself short --- I suspect there is a under recognized and silent group of VD critics out there that simply havent cared enough to make their critism known (or cant work the internet).

Oh .. and by the way ... whats this about a gay VD fan club -- are you sure its not a "Slay VD fan club" -- you might want to go back and check the spelling befiore you actually attend any "VD fan clubs" events... it is a classic pagan trick ... "hey we're your biggest fans, we're having a celebration in your honor" and later on --"So how was VD last night ? .. he was a little dry .. but tasted like ckicken "



Blogger Shimshon July 02, 2015 8:22 AM  

"I publish more female scientists than 99.9 percent of my critics do"

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a scientist? Is he a woman? If yes to both, you are wrong.

Blogger Alexander July 02, 2015 8:36 AM  

Encourage universities and research institutions to extend the deadlines for tenure or project completion for scientists (women and men) who take parental leave, and do not penalize these researchers by excluding them from annual salary rises.

That's bound to win them respect, understanding, and dare I say it - admiration - from their colleagues.

Anonymous LegallySpeaking July 02, 2015 8:41 AM  

What could possible go wrong?

Blogger VD July 02, 2015 8:48 AM  

Encourage universities and research institutions to extend the deadlines for tenure or project completion for scientists (women and men) who take parental leave, and do not penalize these researchers by excluding them from annual salary rises.

Improve science by paying scientists not to do science. Hmm. It occurs to me that I am already a professional non-writer. I see no reason why I can't expand my skill set to become a professional non-scientist as well.

Blogger Russell (106) July 02, 2015 8:56 AM  

I agree. We need more women in science. There's a dreadful shortage of sandwiches in science. More women == more sandwiches.

The math doesn't lie.

Anonymous zapbrannigan1 July 02, 2015 8:59 AM  

Good heavens, I'm getting sick of seeing items like this.

Why should ANY industry, Big Science or otherwise, bend over so far just to accommodate women/LGBT/people of color? It should be blindingly obvious, but one's work output should be the common criterion by which success is measured against one's peers. If you're not willing to put your hand up and ask the challenging question in a crowded room while others are, if you want to take six months leave after having a baby while others choose to come back to work, if you need someone to ask you to join a conference rather than having the confidence to do it yourself, you should NOT expect to enjoy the benefits of such actions. You only get to savor the successes that you earn, not those handed to you because of special treatment.

Also, doesn't this blow a huge hole in the idea that women are just as capable and courageous as men? Yes, there was a potent institutional sexism in industry that prevented female achievement in the first half of the 20th century. However, since the 70's there has also been an unprecedented political wave of pro-female messages in classrooms, boardrooms, books, and seminars. There has been a concurrent explosion of government support for women of all ages, starting with the grrrrl power bullshit in school (see The War Against Boys) and culminating in the policies advocated by Nature in the workplace. My point is, if women need their own affirming curriculum and a raft of special rules to succeed, it totally undercuts the narrative of the strong, independent woman.

There are plenty of bright, driven women out there doing really great work. My wife was one of them, before we started our family. But you'll often find that the ones doing well are the ones who don't need special treatment, and don't expect it. In short, they work and act more like men.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2015 9:02 AM  

"It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’, or to ensure that photographs and illustrations feature women."

It is not "political correctness gone mad" only because "political correctness" already is - and has always been - mad.

As for the particular prescription, anyone who allows himself to be distracted by gender specific pronouns is too immature for adult discourse, let alone professional science.

Anonymous vfm #72 July 02, 2015 9:05 AM  

Scientific research is broken in the west anyway, the literature is full of miracles and no cures. The Dept I was a prof in interviewed a woman for a faculty position, she had a reputation of being scary smart (from CalTech). I had lunch with her and immediately knew the fossils wouldn't hire her, she was too smart. She would have been a great addition to the dept. They did hire women, they were mediocrities like the fossils, sub-par, safe and non-threatening intellectually to the fossils. Their are barriers to women true, I think the larger barrier is that the fossils at most universities are intimidated by people with greater mental capacities.

Anonymous Homesteader July 02, 2015 9:09 AM  

More Virginia Woolf. If they were going to, they would have. They didn't, and they don't.

A few years back, Sharon Begley, Newsweek's 'science" gal, published an article about women in mathematics. It was a wonderfully obtuse article.

As I remember it, her assertions were as follows:

Women don't win enough (any) Fields Medals.
(This was before Mirzakhani's prize.)

It's because sexism in education.

Therefore, If we had more women studying math from an early age, that would change. ( As in the former eastern bloc countries, where math education was more egalitarian).

Meanwhile, she forgot to draw the obvious conclusion- if that were true, then women from those countries wiuld be winning Fields Prizes.

They don't. In spite of their egalitarian training.

So the argument was self-defeating. (I loved reading Sharon.)

I wonder how Mirzakhani did her work in spite of all that Iranian repressive muslim patriarchy, so lacking in safe spaces and cis-free language?

I like the counter argument-

Women don't win enough Fields prizes.

The only female winner comes from a repressive, muslim, patriarchal society.

Thus, to increase Fields prizes for women, we need more repressive, muslim-style patriarchy in Academia.

It's for the women! Because Science!


Anonymous Homesteader July 02, 2015 9:16 AM  

Yes. Stanford. I know. But raised and educated in Iran.

Blogger Mad Dok Rob July 02, 2015 9:19 AM  

Crap like this makes me hate my profession (engineering professor). EVERY TIME I ready stories like this, I have to shake my head, remember rule #1*, stop being pissed and not abandon all hope for humanity.

*Rule #1 states "All people are stupid".

Anonymous Rob July 02, 2015 9:20 AM  

If you're not willing to put your hand up and ask the challenging question in a crowded room while others are...you should NOT expect to enjoy the benefits of such actions.

I've always felt disdain for people who are unwilling to participate in class. A friend of mine claimed that women were "attacked" more for being wrong than men, and were thus less likely to want to participate. I asked her to give me an example, which students in our small, overall rather friendly, graduate program attacked women who said the wrong thing? which faculty members? She wasn't able to provide a single example, yet kept assuring me that it happened "all the time."

In the same conversation, she claimed that the reason for the large male-female disparity in the program was because of sexism. When asked why the majority-female faculty would discriminate against women, she said that it wasn't in the actual admission decisions, but that women were "discouraged" from applying in the first place by the aforementioned attacks and by the "overly competitive" environment. "Women don't like it when their ideas are constantly being challenged," was, I believe, her final word on the subject.

She's since dropped out.

Blogger Brad Andrews July 02, 2015 9:34 AM  

avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’

Instead you must use 'her' and 'she'....

That will prove no bias, in favor of traditional English at least.

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 9:40 AM  

Instead you must use 'her' and 'she'....

Yep. That's how it was in my university textbooks. They don't, of course, dare actually SAY it in the Nature article because that would make the ridiculousness too obvious.

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 9:43 AM  

Just write the article in the sane way, and then do search&replace "he/him" -> "this person of undefined gender".

Blogger Doom July 02, 2015 9:44 AM  

Hmm? On either side? Explain why, even if a woman can learn the material and do the work, she should be allowed to do such when almost no matter what, her simple presence in the lab is more likely to end up with good scientists fired or displaced, and she will be more of a drain on productivity than a boost? Seriously. Now, if you meant to curtail productivity... some do. Or if you do believe in some egalitarianism, or you are a white knight after all, I suppose there is that.

Yeah, sometimes I just don't get it. Maybe you have surrendered? I have no power, no horse in the race one way or another, not at this point. But I won't concede to even a little allowance for feminism. It all started with just a little nudge. We have the fed as a permanent fixture, until one of several major, expensive, events occurs. Basically thanks to the female vote. The fed has been tried before, but after only a few decades and change at most, men came to their senses. Women don't have fucking senses. Gah! Still, your choice.

Nunneries were for women who didn't want marriage. I suppose something like that, of religious and probably secular natures, could be arranged for women who want to be in the sciences. My guess is they will do about as well at the sciences as they do at writing, inventing, engineering, driving, voting, and keeping cool when angry. *grin*

"I hate him!1!!!@452", she squeals. ~ I know, baby. It's my job.

Blogger darkdoc July 02, 2015 9:46 AM  

scientists (women and men) who take parental leave, and do not penalize these researchers by excluding them from annual salary rises.

Pay them more for working less (sometimes much less). Now there is an idea that will work. The economics is solid.

It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’

Why?? Well, just because I say so. Sorta like calling "dibs" on it.

OpenID mattse001 July 02, 2015 9:47 AM  

They are promoting women based on their sex, rather than their accomplishments. Their premise is that more women in science is good in itself, regardless of outcome. To which I say, "No. The purpose of promoting scientists is to get good science, not filling affirmative action quotas."

Blogger Quizzer W July 02, 2015 9:47 AM  

"You gents are fighting the Jim Jones cult with logic and reason, good luck with that."

Yes, we clearly need to fight them by providing more kool-aid.

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 9:51 AM  

Remember ruthless compliance. If you find yourself forced to do the politically correct thing, then at least do it to such ridiculous degree that it causes maximum inconvenience to the sane reader.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2015 10:00 AM  

Ayn Rand said "don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.” So what do policies like these accomplish? Answer: the destruction of science as a profession.

Blogger Kryten 2X4B 523P July 02, 2015 10:00 AM  

@ 40. Quizzer W

"Yes, we clearly need to fight them by providing more kool-aid."

That could work, if we're planning on drowning them in it.

Anonymous T July 02, 2015 10:09 AM  

One of the easiest warning signs to spot and point out to others is the propensity for Re-Educating Adults.

Easy to point out, easy for people to understand why it's bad.

Only someone who fancied themselves Masters of Others could possibly see virtue in it.

That's partly why they went so ape over the Confederate Flag. Projection, for one, they're slavers. Secondly, it allowed them to paint their opponents as slavers.

Perfect, from their perspective.

Blogger guest July 02, 2015 10:10 AM  

Abbie Smith, (ERV) Mean Girl Drama Queen. Reading the drama she stirred up online, I thought to myself, no one is going to hire her. She would turn a team upside down with her general snideness. No Christian would enjoy working with her, on anything. She confuses lewd and rude with high intellect. Who would give her a job? But sure enough, she got hired.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster July 02, 2015 10:24 AM  

"To which I say, "No. The purpose of promoting scientists is to get good science, not filling affirmative action quotas.""

You have to remember that when the SJWs talk about 'science', they mean 'the welfare program for people with science degrees', not actual useful, productive science as conducted by private organizations doing useful, productive things. There are vastly more science grads than useful work for them to do, so the government takes taxpayer money and gives it to them so they can pretend to be doing sciencey-wiencey stuff. Hence the continual 'studies' showing something is safe followed by showing it's dangerous followed by showing it's safe followed by showing it's dangerous followed by showing it's safe, ad ifinitum.

And, obviously, when there's a welfare program like that, women will be doing their best to get the $$$$$$$, too.

Sadly, no-one listened to Eisenhower's warnings about the Science-Government Complex in the 50s. Now there's a huge constituency opposed to any cut in 'science' welfare spending.

Anonymous LES July 02, 2015 10:28 AM  

I attended a choral concert the other night. The women were under-represented in the baritone and bass sections. The men were under-represented in the soprano section but no one seemed to care.

Anonymous The other robot July 02, 2015 10:28 AM  

CNBC is sexist for claiming that a survey shows that Men Work Longer, Women Work Harder at Complaining.

Blogger Edd Jobs July 02, 2015 10:32 AM  

You have to remember that when the SJWs talk about 'science', they mean 'the welfare program for people with science degrees'

They mean Thomas Kuhn, not Karl Popper.

Anonymous The other robot July 02, 2015 10:39 AM  

Abbie Smith, (ERV) Mean Girl Drama Queen. Reading the drama she stirred up online, I thought to myself, no one is going to hire her.

I dunno why she came up, but it seems that Abbie is disliked by all sides. Here, someone very confused claims that she is Anti-science, and a conservative republican lapdog

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2015 10:43 AM  

How many Shakespeares, Dantes, or even JRR Tolkiens have been produced since since the liberation of women...

This is a really important question. How are we every supposed to maintain a civilization if we shoulder aside our highest potential men in order to make room for a bunch of mediocre women who are too busy with maternity leave to actually do their job? Is it any wonder things are declining?

I'm with Giuseppe. Fuck all this bullshit.


"Women don't like it when their ideas are constantly being challenged," was, I believe, her final word on the subject.

She's since dropped out.


It's your fault for challenging her ideas, no doubt.

Blogger rcocean July 02, 2015 10:46 AM  

Love how VD threw in the 99 percent claims as bait for the literal minded wankers.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 02, 2015 10:48 AM  

Quizzer go ahead debate the PC Theocracy myself I want my freedom from the PC Theocracy not a synthesis with the PC Theocracy

Anonymous Satan's Hamster July 02, 2015 10:55 AM  

"How are we every supposed to maintain a civilization if we shoulder aside our highest potential men in order to make room for a bunch of mediocre women who are too busy with maternity leave to actually do their job?"

We're not. That's the whole point. The SJWs aren't doing these things to benefit women, they're doing them to destroy Western civilization. Every institution they destroy takes them one step closer to that goal. I presume the original intention was to take down the West so their Soviet masters could roll in and take over, but they never noticed that the USSR collapsed.

As for maternity leave, I've met a number of women who bitch about the perpetual mothers in their organization who get a job and spend most of the time pregnant, so the other women have to do their work as well as their own. It's far from universally popular, even among women.

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 11:04 AM  

Perpetual Motherhood 2.0: Be constantly pregnant, but always do extreme late-term abortion (but not partial-birth; illegal so kill the baby with potassium chloride injection to heart just before birth so it's all kosher legally).

Satan, take note. That one's free, but more consulting services gonna cost ya.

Anonymous Bz July 02, 2015 11:07 AM  

A modest proposal. To right this terrible inequity, let us tenure Lily Aldridge, Hannah Davis, Chanel Iman (twofer), Robyn Lawley, Kelly Rohrbach and Emily Ratajkowski (academic parents, I hear) to begin with, and subsequently in each year the entire freshman class of the SI Swimsuit issue, until a balance has been reached. A proper background in modelling as well as extensive physical requirements is needed to avoid impostors entering this program or changing the mission of SI.

The universities will of course be required to staff the new professors with adequate funds and personnel so that they can perform their duties, as well as provide relevant funded leave since these professors are in the prime of their careers.

(In related news, society also need to hold back higher education for females so that equality can again be reached. For example, it is said women today attain 60% of advanced degrees, something that must clearly be adjusted.)

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes July 02, 2015 11:09 AM  

The "diversity is good" axiom is so embedded into the western psyche that it is taken as a universal law, much like the law of gravity. Not only does one dare not question it, but one can't even fathom that it might not be true.

This view stems from the denial of differences between the sexes that became so pervasive among academia starting in the 60's. If gender differences are purely cosmetic it follows that replacing 50% of men in every field will not make any difference. Similarly, if men and women are not different then gender is simply a cultural construct.

But of course, the elephant in the room is where are all the great achievements by women? Where are the women counterparts to Newton, Galileo, Keplar, Aristotle, Archimedes, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Hubble, Pasteur, Faraday, Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Watson and Crick, Friedman, Kilby, Gutenberg, Ford, Berners-Lee. Heck, even the birth control pill was invented by a man.

Oh wait. Mary Anderson invented the windshield wiper blade. Never mind.

Anonymous The other robot July 02, 2015 11:11 AM  

Uh Ok, Abbie Smith is into Sci Fi conferences. Maybe she will attend SasQuan

Anonymous a_peraspera July 02, 2015 11:14 AM  

It just seems arrogant to claim that a field will automatically be improved by adding more women. Do women actually think they are just that awesome?


SJWs seem to live by this process:

Step 1: Add more women
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Science (or other applicable field) improves!

Well, I would like to know what women think is going to happen in step 2, before moving forward.


I suppose women see nothing but dumb white men on TV, so they assume that whatever white men are doing all day, it must be pretty easy - and of course any woman could do better...

Women are told their whole lives that they are perfect and wonderful, and nothing that goes wrong is ever their fault. I guess if people like that really existed, they WOULD indeed improve the shit out of science just by entering the field!

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 11:19 AM  

Step 1: Add more women
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Science (or other applicable field) improves!


It's very easy. First, make it a thought-crime to even entertain the possibility that women might be worse than men at something.

Then point to the fact that less than 50% of the people in a certain field are women. Ask why this is.

Now, you can't state the obvious. Thought crime, you see. So, the only option you are allowed to express is that it's because of discrimination. And discrimination is bad. So, now you have to start taking whatever measures necessary to take it to 50% or else you are discriminating, by your own confession.

And THAT, my friend, is illegal.

Anonymous zen0 July 02, 2015 11:21 AM  

How to treat a leftist

Video from Hevron.

Leftist insults Arabs who she supposedly has come to aid.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 02, 2015 11:22 AM  

offering excessive "help" to a particular class or group is the collectivists' favorite way of destroying members of that group.
-Native Americans
-Blacks
-LGBTetcetera
-Women

Continue to hammer men, especially Caucasian men. The best steel is usually forged.

Blogger Quadko July 02, 2015 11:26 AM  

ensure that photographs and illustrations feature women
And here I thought that was one of the sexist things feminists fight against all the time. "Too sexy," "not sexy enough," and constant complaints about objectifying to either extreme.

Yet one more reason why we don't implement their rules - they change faster than they can be implemented, and we observe that if you're a cycle behind you get barbequed by the critics worse than us non-participants.

Anonymous MendoScot July 02, 2015 11:27 AM  

Well, we could start firing men in science, starting with Ben (neé Barbara) Barres.

Anonymous The other robot July 02, 2015 11:32 AM  

It just seems arrogant to claim that a field will automatically be improved by adding more women. Do women actually think they are just that awesome?

Well, they have the vaginas, so of course they think they are just that awesome.

Anonymous Rolf July 02, 2015 11:39 AM  

SO what do they say when you tell them that their efforts to make everyone feel included make the large percentage of the top talent feel excluded and marginalized? They'll say, of course, something to the effect of "toughen up!" So why, then, can't they say the same to those who are not straight white males, unless they really are not good enough to compete without "subsidizing" their efforts?

Just thinkin' out loud, here, folks. Just thinking out loud....

Anonymous rubberducky July 02, 2015 11:45 AM  

If you took six months off any job, then came back to it and everything is hunky dory and going along just as well as when you left, then you've got a serious problem. Because you've just taught everybody else that you're totally unnecessary.

Why don't these ladies ever get this?

Anonymous Case July 02, 2015 11:52 AM  

The only effective response to actions such as these is to do everything possible to exclude females from societal positions for which they are not suited.

Blogger Bateful Higot July 02, 2015 11:59 AM  

With all of the thinly-veiled molly-coddling in that laundry list, I very nearly expected them to say that they should avoid criticism of women in science, lest they make the poor dears cry.

Blogger Bateful Higot July 02, 2015 12:02 PM  

@Quadko

The dilemma you're describing demonstrates how anything related to feminism is simply a female shit test writ large. Society always supplicates to their frame, and as a result women are always miserable.

Anonymous Scintan July 02, 2015 12:03 PM  

It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’, or to ensure that photographs and illustrations feature women.

Yes...

Yes, it is.

Blogger Jack Ward July 02, 2015 12:12 PM  

I hope Stickwick will weigh in on this. I suspect I know, more or less, what she will say. That is one woman I would hire in an instant. Level headed, a mom, an authentic scientist. What is not to like.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 02, 2015 12:20 PM  

In Ron Liddle's "Selfish, Whining Monkeys: How we became Greedy, Narcissistic and Unhappy" (sound familiar, girls?) he makes this exact point.

For 50 years the NHS, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, schools and universities blasted out equalitarian propaganda to entice more females into surgery. They offered scholarships, the lowered standards, they preached anti-bias, they punished dissenting opinion.

They did this because 92 % of (e.g.) thoracic surgeons were male.

Via these methods they managed to marginally increase the numbers beginning to study surgery. But they couldnt make the women stay, and the women dont stay.

So today 92 % of thoracic surgeons in the UK are male, after 5 decades of SJW propaganda, bribery, threats, and persecution.

But 92 % of speech therapists are female.

Oddly, this is not a problem. Nobody, not even men's rights fanatics, are complaining that men are being structurally excluded, that women have constructed an old girls club, built a glass ceiling, and given themselves a lock on the profession.

The whole nonsense is a direct result of the progressive's fundamental error/fantasy/evasion that people are born tabula rasa (blank slates) and all subsequent differences are the result of social conditioning.

Therefore, such disparities MUST be proof of bias, chauvinism, structural defects in our culture.

But that just isn't true, either. The fact is that most men just dont like being speech therapists, for whatever reason.

Plainly, in the first example, these women's reasons also have little to do with social conditioning, because the social conditions are radically different but the numbers remain intransigently the same.

Plainly, in spite of Brucelyn's feelings on the matter, social conditioning didn't give me testicles, nor my wife ovaries.

Shame about Ron though, he is the most sensible progressive I've ever read, but still a progressive.

Anonymous Philipp July 02, 2015 12:37 PM  

I wonder where is the problem? They want more women in science? Well, the solution is easy. The leaders of science departments in universities and companies should go to and tell half their male scientists that from now on they will identify as women. So Dr Martin Smith becomes Dr Martina Smith, Professor Justin Brown becomes Professor Justine Brown ect.

Change the names on the websites and send everybody back to work. Problem solved.

Blogger Groot July 02, 2015 1:43 PM  

I disagree with the direction of this entire thread. Of course there should be more women, all the time. Well, hot women. Moar. Mmm, the porn just writes itself.

Blogger hank.jim July 02, 2015 1:47 PM  

All this women in science stuff means women doing nothing in science.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 02, 2015 1:50 PM  

Something like this, Groot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B55EpJj2CAI

Blogger IM2L844 July 02, 2015 1:59 PM  

Fuck all this bullshit.
When is it going to be legal to actually shoot the zombies? Because we're clearly in full apocalypse mode.
Toothless and slow they may be, but zombies all the same.


Soon, G. Soon.

Soon, Giuseppe. Soon.

Also, I meant to answer your question bout my moniker the other day, but I got sidetracked and forgot about it. Anyway, it's not all that interesting. I keep it in honor of a friend of mine that passed away several years ago. We had been best friends since the fourth grade...or about 40 years when he died on Christmas Eve. We were also golfing buddies; both equally horrible at it. He always ribbed me for being late for T-time and I generally shanked it a couple of times during the round. Hence I'm too late for FORE. Also, It's never already taken when I register for something. You can call me Nick if you prefer. That's my real name.

Blogger Groot July 02, 2015 1:59 PM  

ScuzzaMan: Ah so, padawan, you apprehend insightfully.

Anonymous Fnord P July 02, 2015 2:32 PM  

I call bullshit. During the years I was working for my PhD the lab was roughly 50:50 men:women. My wife still works in Big Pharma R&D and estimates 45:65 men:women in their labs - with more even more women in support roles. Men are probably more numerous in production but most of those jobs don't require a PhD.

Anonymous kfg July 02, 2015 2:47 PM  

"I call bullshit."

Your "facts" are not part of the narrative The very fact that you bring up facts shows that you are part of the problem. Wait. I need to rephrase that.

Shit!

Blogger John Wright July 02, 2015 2:49 PM  

It is not ‘political-correctness-gone-mad’ to avoid defaulting to the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’

Indeed, it is merely bad grammar. See your Strunk and White. Unless the antecedent is or must be female, 'he' is used for both sexes. Like the word 'dog', it is used for male and female both, but 'bitches' for female only. This is not a case of the language ignoring females but glamorizing them. We males do not have a special pronoun for ourselves. In English, there is a genetic pronoun (he) and a female pronoun (she). The is no male pronoun in English.

Morons.

Blogger Groot July 02, 2015 2:53 PM  

@Fnord (Fnord?):

Of course, it's bullshit. Hence our ironic response. Women numerically dominate academia. Just not some fields, hence our further ironic response. Math is hard.

Anonymous BigGaySteve July 02, 2015 3:00 PM  

gay VD fan club The gay VD fan club meets at the bathhouses and are called bugchasers.

Encourage universities and research institutions to extend the deadlines for tenure or project completion for scientists (women and men)

How is that cure for cancer going? I don't know every time they start getting feedback all the girl scientists call off pregnant.

What is the scientific basis for the assertion that gender bias training would have powerful effects?

They questioned 10 womens studies PHDs how the feels.

If you took six months off any job, then came back to it and everything is hunky dory and going along just as well as when you left

Even worse is when it was going better because a 6' tall travel temp guy took their place

I very nearly expected them to say that they should avoid criticism of women in science, lest they make the poor dears cry.

No peer review needed because that is sexist/racist.

Blogger guest July 02, 2015 3:20 PM  

Abbie Smith is known for debating Michael Behe, and a few others using shoddy biology, which her fans don't realize, because they don't understand biology. She is also known for her filthy mouth, fanning the flames of elevator gate, including creating the term Twatson, to dub Rebecca Watson. --nice.

I've read her blog, and her science is lightweight, As was the talk I just watched. But it isn't her less than stellar science that assumed she would have difficulty finding a job after college. After all, all science requires training for the job on hand. It was the fact that she is lewd--requesting that a blogger who disagreed with her post a picture of her breasts, and rude. She mocks straw-men arguments about Creationists. Her arguments with women are reduced to calling them ugly, and she is disrespectful. All of these qualities I thought to be distractions on a scientific team. And yet, she was hired off of the mark. Amazing.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 02, 2015 3:55 PM  

My wife still works in Big Pharma R&D and estimates 45:65 men:women

"Math class is hard!" -- Barbie

Anonymous Fnord P July 02, 2015 4:09 PM  

Durrr, my bad not hers,

somewhere between 35:65 to 45:55 men:wimmins (they've lots of labs)

Blogger Robert What? July 02, 2015 4:11 PM  

I have a better suggestion: assign a white knight white beta nerd to each woman. He must do all the work and she will take all the credit and advancement. His reward: he gets to do her laundry once a month.

Anonymous BGS July 02, 2015 4:36 PM  

My wife still works in Big Pharma R&D and estimates 45:65 men:women.

Where all da women be at? 15 be on maternity leave & 10 calls off sick today, so we only at 45:40

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 4:52 PM  

and are called bugchasers.

You are still baby Ilk. The fanclub is called VQPF.

Anonymous freddie_mac1 July 02, 2015 5:50 PM  

"And what is the price of trading a few Watsons and Hunts for the scientific equivalents of Stephanie Meyers and E.L. James going to be?"

And what about the modern Marie Curie, who will have to fight that much harder to be taken seriously?

I don't care if a woman wants to be a doctor, soldier, firefighter, or scientist; what I had expected (quite stupidly, it seems) is that women in those occupations would be held to the same standards as their male counterparts.

As a woman, this hand-holding disgusts me; what these PC morons are actually saying is that women/non-whites aren't *capable* of meeting the same criteria as white men.

Blogger Markku July 02, 2015 5:53 PM  

As a woman, this hand-holding disgusts me; what these PC morons are actually saying is that women/non-whites aren't *capable* of meeting the same criteria as white men.

Exactly. When I see a white or Asian (Far-East) male in a business, I know that that person has earned his place with ability and hard work. For everyone else, my assumption is affirmative action unless I see particular evidence to the contrary.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) July 02, 2015 6:00 PM  

My wife still works in Big Pharma R&D and estimates 45:65 men:women
----
"Math class is hard!" -- Barbie


To be fair, there's no reason why the ratio has to add up to 100.

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 6:00 PM  

The macro-narrative is thus... The nerds that still dominate the whole of the science industry don't want the feminine out of science... Just the dyke-face.

BUT...

The nerds are so evenly split between social incompetence and professional competence that neither side is pressed to make distinctions. So why side of nerd is desperate for any female in proximity, feminine or dyke-face while the other side can find "p$&@y" elsewhere outside their workplace.

There needs to be a nerd with balls that says "we" only really want the pretty, smart females and the anti-male dykes and their dyke-face allies need not expect any warm welcomes to the industry if they can indeed survive the gauntlet?

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 6:04 PM  

^^^ So while one] side of nerd is desperate for any female in proximity, feminine or dyke-face[,] the other side can find "p$&@y" elsewhere outside their workplace.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts