Imagine that every fourth word in “Howl” were an f-bomb, and you’ve pretty much got the idea behind this post at Feministe.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I forget who it was who pointed out that, while he was sucking dicks and smoking shitty weed, the best minds of Ginsberg’s generation were actually designing moon rockets, exterminating smallpox, and inventing the technology that led to the Internet.
Sounds like someone over at feministe is a little jealous of the pretty girls and mad at the guys who notice.
And “PhysioProf” is still too cowardly to step out of his echo chamber, I see.
I guess I’ll never think of a chillum the same way again.
Generically, I would say that PhysioProf started out in his prior post advocating the application of Title IX to science programs, but now is arguing about problems that he admits are not legally actionable (including under Title IX). Which is more than generically incoherent.
Moreover, as I noted in my response to his initial posting on this — he is complaining about problems within academia that are not really the focus of the federal inquiries that prompted him to write in the first instance (which are concerned more with student enrollments, not how academics treat each other).
That feministe post crashed my browser twice. FF2. I oughta upgrade this weekend. IE did ok though. Is that true about dripping pipes?
From what I’ve seen in my few trips to Feministe their content is pedestrian.. Oooh.. another angry person stretching to find something to be insulted by..How novel.. I think “Feministe” must be Latin for “Perpetually Pissed”..
Is that true about dripping pipes?
Yeah, in the old days a shot of penicillin would clear that right up.
Nowadays, not so much.
JESUS F*CKING KEEERIST ON A PONY, HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD ….!!!!
I got just as far as this bit:
the overwhelmingly vast majority of inequitable discrimination that occurs in science is not legally actionable. I will illustrate this with shit I have seen with my own two eyes.
I have seen a very senior male scientist turn to a young female scientist in the context of a small group of men and women and state, “I’m imagining you right now in a bikiniâ€Â.
WTF is going on when asswipes want to CRIMINALIZE obnoxious behavior? WTF??? Are young female scientists such BABIES, such INFANTS they couldn’t come back with a clever line that would cut the obnoxious idiot down to size???
I’m sorry. I’ve lost my patience. Any female that couldn’t handle a line like that and felt they have to have a LAW to come to their defense doesn’t deserve to be in public, let alone in a science career.
GO HOME AND DON YOUR HOLY FEMINIST BURQA, BITCH!
LA is like ground zero for fun new strains of just about everything. It’s best not to think too much about it.
Darleen. You rock.
hf
I.am.royally.pissed.
I’m down to my last whit of bullshit tolerance and cajones-berift PeeProff at Feministe just stomped on it.
How DARE he infantalize women.
Maybe he considers it fair turnabout for his fellow travelers dehumanizing him — he’s a “male”, remember?
I have fielded any number of obnoxious, sexually tinged comments throughout my life … my reaction in that situation (especially since others were around) would be
“Funny, I could imagine you in a Speedo, but I’m not into bulimia.”
How fuckin hard is this?
SBP
He’s not a man.
sh*t, I’d make myself another martini, but I think I’m out of gin.
Darleen, I’m imagining you in a bikini.
LMC
Sweetheart, I hope your imaginings go back about, hmmm, ten years. ;-)
And the blog ads over there, hysterical.
Hey, it’s easy if you try.
I found it strange that at least two, and possibly three, of the four anecdotes he cites as not legally actionable are, in fact, just that. Though I have to agree with Darleen in a larger sense. The best response to an asshole is to put them in their place and show you won’t take it.
I found it strange that at least two, and possibly three, of the four anecdotes he cites as not legally actionable are, in fact, just that.
I find it strange that he thinks boorish idiocy is phenomenon in the science field.
And Darleen is right.
Once my dork boss (well, old boss, now colleague and we do a lot of projects together) pressed his index finger on my apparently headlighted booby and said “ding dong” – um, it’s apparent he wasn’t really thinking things through and I think he was actually more shocked at what he had just done than I was, because as I said, he is a big doof.
Anyhow, I scolded him for his dumbassery “how could you be so stupid?”
The best part is the next day I sat down to my desk to an apologetic email in which he described in blow by blow detail what he had done and how sorry he was.
So for this particular bit of Legal No No’s 101 stupidity I tortured him by responding “Sexual Harassment Lawyer accepts the apology and thanks you too! you big dummy” and forwarded it to everyone (15 or so) in the company.
That was fun.
Oh…I forgot to say why it was so fun.
About 10 minutes after I forwarded the email people started coming out of their offices laughing their asses off or just stunned the owner of his own company would be so stupid to document “I’m sorry I pressed your nipple and said “ding dong” yesterday” in an email.
Generically, I would say that PhysioProf started out in his prior post advocating the application of Title IX to science programs, but now is arguing about problems that he admits are not legally actionable (including under Title IX). Which is more than generically incoherent.
It may be incoherent when taken at face value, but I think there is another angle to making the second argument, that is, in a way supportive of the first. Specifically, the idea of applying title IX in this case, or other laws in only tangentially relevant ways, is lacking in real rhetorical or factual support. By making the case that it would only be scratching the surface of the reforms that ought to be made, the second argument moves the first from knee-jerk reaction to the realm of considered and reasonable approach.
I’m not really familiar with the whole tenure-track way in which things are done in today’s academia, but how in the hell would this not be reported to the authorities at any college or university as an example of sexual discrimination?
How would any of the examples given have gone unnoticed by the Faculty Senate of any of the schools where these supposed injustices allegedly happened without a major scandal?
Seriously, Larry Summers got drummed out of Harvard for a helluva lot less.
I’m pretty sure PhysioProf is talking some major bullshit here.
Darleen wrote, How DARE he infantalize women.
I think you’re mad at the wrong thing. I get frustrated at how it’s never enough that something is unjust for men, we always have to convince ourselves that it’s bad for women. Then, and only then, can we take action.
PhysioProf is a follower. It’s female scientists leading the way on this. Darleen, we’ve had this discussion before. Many women want to be infantilized, they are called feminists. They demand deferential treatment. One sees this in work life, social life, and government policy.
I’m in math, and already the NSF fast tracks funding for women. If you have a vagina, you’ll get funding dollars within six months. Men can wait up to two years. There’s lots of this stuff already going on. We haven’t even touched upon grade inflation for females in the sciences, which is rampant. Administrators demand the bell curves be identical for male and female students.
This stuff isn’t limited to academia, either. In my experience, women want equality and special treatment, a logical impossibility. Since the propositions are contradictories, the scales have to tip one way or the other, almost always towards giving women special treatment — at the expense of men. In one way or another, this happens by shifting a woman’s responsibilities onto a man. Ultimately, women are demanding rights without responsibilities, choice without consequences, professional advancement without professional accomplishments.
This is not men infantilizing women, it’s woman advocating laws requiring men to infantilize them
However, it’s important to note that men go along with this bullshit. PhysioProf is an example. But still, it’s women asking for this. Get mad at the women, too.
Sean wrote, I’m pretty sure PhysioProf is talking some major bullshit here.
He says the context is a small group of people. There’s lots of social situations where one might hear that kind of comment. I do think he’s talking bullshit.
You people have serious problems with reading comprehension and logical reasoning. In my first post you drooled on, I never asserted that Title IX should be applied to science, and in the post you are gibbering about now, I never assert that the situations I describe should be legally actionable.
It’s funny, but even at my age (14), my pipes drip quite frequently. I just can’t figure that out…
And it’s too bad that a vagina slap is so much more awkward than a cock slap.
And how absolutely horrible that a drunken scientist would act “inappropriately”! I never get a buzz and look at any woman’s “parts”.
I think that if this woman is that repressed, she should wrap her torso in an Ace bandage or two. Or maybe jump off of the nearest tall building so that she won’t have to endure the totally demeaning behaviour of someone who thinks she looks good.
What I see in that post, when translated to Lost Dog-ism,is: “Oh My God! Some male PIG actually wants to touch my stuff!”
Maybe I will send her a tube of super glue.
DOH!
PhysioProf,
That’s hilarious, right there, because we note that some of what you describe already is legally actionable, even though you claim in the lede that it isn’t. Trying to grope a subordinate? Please!
What is it that you ARE advocating, hmmmmm? What do you think would be sufficient unto the cause?
Some of the critical comments here really don’t understand the slightly unique aspects of academia. When the original post is talking about senior researchers, they are talking about people at other universities and in different leadership structures. Not matter how harassing they are, you cannot file an harassment suit involving someone who isn’t in your own organization. Still, these researchers are the people who review and approve articles and grants and can affect your interactions with others at meetings. Thus, they can’t be sued, but they do have a significant amount of influence over people’s careers and the quality of the workplace.
As for the discussion of infantilization of women, an academic career is rarely the best way to maximize salary or minimize work hours. PhDs often take these jobs because they love the work and want to advance our knowledge in ways that might not lead to a marketed product in the very short term.
Still, if academia is an unpleasant work environment for women and companies/government are more welcoming, then academia loses out on recruiting from the best of almost half of the workforce. Part of the discussion is how can universities make an environment where the best people (regardless of gender) want to work there?
I [PhysioProf] have been at a conference where all the big swinging dick male machers pompously lob each other softballs after each other’s presentations, but then gang up and mercilessly hound a prominent senior female scientist after her presentation, even so far as to carry on the hounding for over a half hour into the supposed “open-topic†discussion period. And not a single one of the organizers or anyone else did a single fucking thing to try to move the discussion on.
I, too, have seen things you wouldn’t believe.
I have been at an alcohol-soaked science-related social event where a male faculty member leeringly tried to feel up a junior female post-doc.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I have heard a male plenary speaker at a major conference lead off his talk by telling a joke about a female scientist giving a seminar in which the punchline was “I don’t care if I can hear you, so long as I can see youâ€Â.
c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
And I have seen female scientists with tears in their fucking eyes after shit like this happens. I know female scientists who speak too goddamn quietly, because they know that when they raise their voices, their pitch rises too, and then they sound like shrill harpies.
All those …
I know many brilliant female scientists who are uncertain of their own brilliance, and many not-so-brilliant male scientists who are certain of their own brilliance.
… moments …
None of this shit taken individually is legally actionable, but it adds up incrementally to severe inequitable discrimination, just like a dripping pipe, over time, eats a hole into a fucking concrete floor.
… will be lost in time, like an aggrieved female scientist’s tears if she’s standing on a concrete floor under a dripping pipe.
–
And you seem not to understand that one still can press charges when someone attempts to grope one.
It’s worth noting that PhysioProf self-selected himself right out of the big-dicked male macher scientist types. At no point did *he* opt to ask a tough question instead of allowing the softball questions to keep coming.
… at no point did PhysioProf attempt to redirect the conversation during the Open Topic/Q&A session
… and I’m quite sure that PhysioProf didn’t object to the exhibiting the poor behavior – such as saying “THAT’S NOT FUNNY” at the joke about “..so long as I can see you.”
That’s not his place. And PhysioProf knows it.
So, we know that PhysioProf is, at best, a mid-brained drone in the Science Machine lacking the ability to affect either events or the social dynamics of the situation he’s in. But, hey, drop him in front of a keyboard and give him a webscreen where the stakes are low, and PhysioProf becomes the Empathetic-Male equivalent of “Rage Boy”.
Who’d’ve fuckin’ thought that?
fuck.
Note that “PhysioProf”‘s content-free farrago of ad hominems and non sequiturs is allowed to stand, while any hint of criticism at feministe is quickly vanished.
By the by, I’d wager a fairly large sum that I understand logic better than he does.
Few of the harassment examples listed were about direct physical harassment such as groping. There was a lot of verbal harassment, some of a sexual nature. Still, as far as I know, this is not legally actionable unless there’s a company to use for workplace harassment.
bsci: you can hold the lectures. A fair number of us are, or have been, in academia.
A few unsourced anecdotes (even if true) are not persuasive evidence of a large-scale problem.
I didn’t see any of the academics here correcting the comments of those who didn’t understand the system. As someone with knowledge of academia, I assume you’ll correct other’s misunderstandings in the future even if they don’t go along with your preferred narrative? Then again, perhaps you prefer that this is your own special echo chamber with ad hominem insults on the author of the piece along with non sequitur references to Alan Ginsberg.
Also sure these are anecdotes, but, in this case, an anecdote is a sufficient response to someone saying “X does not happen.” Even a cursory reading will show enough anecdotes to reach the point of data. Also, there’s more enough literature on this topic too if you care to look.
Also, as for anecdotes, I challenge you to find a woman in academia who is at least 5 years post PhD who hadn’t directly experienced sexual harassment or doesn’t personally know someone who directly experienced sexual harassment. Any female academics reading here willing to state that this is the case for them?
in this case, an anecdote is a sufficient response to someone saying “X does not happen.â€Â
Who said that this does not happen?
Be specific.
Once you’ve done that, please demonstrate that:
a) sexual harassment is more prevalent in academia than it is in private industry
b) sexual harassment is more prevalent in the hard sciences than it is in fields with larger numbers of women (such as the social sciences and humanities)
c) that stories about rude comments at conferences are the primary (or a primary) reason for women not going into the hard sciences.
Thanks.
Another question: What did you do in these situations? I don’t know about PP, but I’m going to recommend being proactive in such ghastly situations as encountering an asshole. If you’re the target of an asshole, Darleen/TSK9’s ridicule remedy works. If you’re an observer of obnoxious behavior, Darleen/TSK9’s ridicule remedy works. If it’s an actionable offense, take action!
Some women are assholes, and you can find them in many fields. See Feministe. Some men are assholes and they also are in many fields. See PhysioProf. But then, I’m being redundant. So, treat them like assholes and everyone will get the picture.
Oh, and the Ginsberg thing? It’s a joke. Dan made it, and I riffed on it.
bsci, I challenge you to find one woman on the planet who hasn’t. That’s not the point. The point is that the smart ones address it, either personally or through the system. The feministe types, on the other hand, whine about it and insist every man be castrated to protect them from the minority of assholes.
I see Bumperstickerist beat me to it …
If PP directly observed any of the obnoxious behavior and did nothing, it reinforces what I said earlier.
He is no man.
“Also, as for anecdotes, I challenge you to find a woman in academia who is at least 5 years post PhD who hadn’t directly experienced sexual harassment or doesn’t personally know someone who directly experienced sexual harassment. Any female academics reading here willing to state that this is the case for them?”
Replace “woman in academia who is at least 5 years post PhD” with “human being.” These things truly are universal (for women, and now for men), and not evidence of teh Patriarchy.
jeff.younger
I do not wish to let radical feminists off the hook in this regard. Understand, it is NOT a situation of “she did it first”. What you have is a political dogma dressed up in victim-du-jour Halloween masks. It is Leftist faux egalitarianism – it first demands that all the old “patriarchal” traditions/morals/ethics/religions be dismissed, then it substitutes ever growing and draconic and authoritarian statutes and laws in its place.
50 years ago an obnoxious drunk at a party that groped a women would have had the nearest men grabbing handfuls of his clothing and physically tossing him into the street – that is possibly after the woman had coldcocked him. Then the drunk, after he sobered up the next day, would have to spend a great deal of time publically repenting his behavior to every observer or continued to be shunned by polite society. There were accepted societal rules that people abided by.
Amen, Darleen
Oh, another thing. PP relates how harassing some academics are to women vis a vis their professional output.
Wonder how much of the same kind of behavior he’s observed towards [minority] non-leftist academics?
[P]lease demonstrate that:
a) sexual harassment is more prevalent in academia than it is in private industry
b) sexual harassment is more prevalent in the hard sciences than it is in fields with larger numbers of women (such as the social sciences and humanities)
c) that stories about rude comments at conferences are the primary (or a primary) reason for women not going into the hard sciences.
Thanks.
(theme from Final Jeopardy plays softly in the background)
You dipshits are cracking me the fuck up. Like anyone gives a flying fuck about responding to your lame-ass “challenges” and thereby “convincing” you of anything! HAHAHAH!
Come on, Darleen. Everyone knows that white men run everything and get a free pass at all times. BECAUSE OF TEH RACIST PATRIARCHY!!!!!
You dipshits are cracking me the fuck up.
Translation: you have no response.
Thanks for playing.
Brilliant riposte, PP. I am slain by your incisive argument and rapier wit.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah, dude! You win!
Now what was the prize again? Oh, right.
Hey, wait a minute. I think I know why PP doesn’t do that snappy comeback to shoot down an asshole thing: he’s not very clever. Plus, professional courtesy.
Now what was the prize again?
The prize of laughing at a pompous, irrational, meretricious blowhard?
Works for me. And, I suspect, the rest of us.
Gotta say it’s not the kind of quick thinking, class, tolerance, or respect for ideas that I’d expect from someone who claims to be a “Prof”. Oh, wait, yes it is. It’s exactly what I’d expect. Congratulations on your open-minded liberalism, there, “Prof”
I bow to your superior intellect, PP.
Speaking as someone who just completed graduate school, and whose fiancee is a month away from defending her Ph.D, I think your “generalizations” or “anecdotes prove me right” are mostly bullshit.
Hey Prof
I have a vagina, which gives me Moral Authority over you. I dare say in my 54 years on this planet I’ve dealt with more sexual harrassment than you have.
So listen up, brother – “unfair” is a way of life. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has disappointments, encounters obnoxious people, faces tragedies and regardless of plans, rarely gets everything their heart desires.
The difference is how do you deal with it? Male or female, you can grow a pair and act like an adult or you can stay a childish whiner, a victim, screeching for the police/authorities/et al, to deal with your every disappoint that is never ever your fault.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I’m so glad I’ve raised my 4 daughters not to be wimps. Even the one in college in San Francisco is savvy enough to spot leftist bullshit when she sees it…she just turns in papers geared to her profs’ political beliefs, gets her A’s and then leaves their class in her rearview mirror.
Because, seriously, Academia? Numerous faults with the tenure system aside, Academia is the hotbed for teh Patriarchy?
You know, those institutions with Women’s Centers that have dozens of dedicated staffers, entire administration departments devoted to “diversity” and “women and minorities”, academic departments whose primary output is scholarly outrage (Women’s Studies, Queer Theory, AA Studies, etc.), quasi-draconian speech codes for the students, etc.?
That Academia?
I’ve been a physiologist for over 25 years, attended lots of conferences, and I have never seen anyone while speaking publicly at a conference make the kind of statements that physioprof relates. If someone had, the asshole, no matter how long his pub list, would have regretted it. Parties, smaller affairs, even in the lab, I don’t doubt this happens. But then all kinds of shit happens. I have known some really crazy scientists; a few appear to view their lab as some kind of personal psycho-torture chamber with graduate students and post docs as their playthings. If you don’t like it, find another lab to work in. If you need the opportunity and you want the name recognition then you suck it up and endure.
As noted previously, PhysioProf by his irl actions isn’t much of a man, and even less of a woman.
PhysioProf does however care – he simply chooses to act on that emotion from the comfort and safety of his keyboard. There is precedent for *choosing* to take no action at critical moments in situations involving womenthough. One example is this vintage John Kerry, circa 1986, anecdote where Kerry display the proto-PhysioProf characteristic of being a witness.
From P.J. O’Rourke
Most of the Potomac Parakeets were a big disappointment. Massachusetts senator John Kerry was a founding member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but he was a bath toy in this fray.
On Sunday night, two days after the election, thirty of the computer operators from COMELEC [the Philippine government “Commission on Elections,†appointed by Marcos and in charge of compiling the final vote tally] walked off the job, protesting that the vote figures were being juggled. Aquino supporters and NAMFREL volunteers took the operators, most of them young women, to a church, and hundreds of people formed a protective barrier around them. [NAMFRELâ€â€The National Movement for Free Electionsâ€â€was supposedly nonpartisan, but NAMFREL members were strongly anti-Marcos.]
Village Voice reporter Joe Conason and I had been tipped off about the walkout, and when we got to the church, we found Bea Zobel, one of Cory Aquino’s top aides, in a tizzy. “The women are terrified,†she said. “They’re scared to go home. They don’t know what to do. We don’t know what to do.†Joe and I suggested that Mrs. Zobel go to the Manila Hotel and bring back some members of the Congressional observer team. She came back with Kerry, who did nothing.
Kerry later said that he didn’t talk to the COMELEC employees then because he wasn’t allowed to. [A bone-head Rolling Stone fact-checker sent the article to Kerry’s Senate office for comment. Kerry staffers were wroth and insisted the senator’s version of events be included.] This is ridiculous. He was ushered into an area that had been cordoned off from the press and the crowd and where the computer operators were sitting. To talk to the women, all he would have had to do was raise his voice. Why he was reluctant, I can’t tell you. I can tell you what any red-blooded representative of the U.S. Government should have done. He should have shouted, “If you’re frightened for your safety, I’ll take you to the American embassy, and damn the man who tries to stop me.†But all Kerry did was walk around like a male model in a concerned and thoughtful pose
–
Comment by jeff.younger on 7/19 @ 4:58 am #
In the Soviet Union, you reported to the coomie bosses what they wanted to hear.
It lasted, what, 70 years?
commie bosses.
PIMF
Darleen – What’s a vagina? Does it make you special? If so, where can I buy one?
“Comment by PhysioProf on 7/19 @ 8:27 am #
Thanks for playing.
Yeah, dude! You win!
Now what was the prize again? Oh, right.”
You get your balls back.
commie bosses.
I just figured you were typing with an Irish accent.
Darleen – I mean I’m confuzzled. I can get treated rude and insulted by women and men at work and outside of work in the course of an ordinary day. The people at that other blog seem to be saying with one of those vagina thingers that shouldn’t happen, that should make me extra special and different.
Extra special and different sounds good, but I’m pretty sure it would piss off everybody around me that I had to interact with if all of a sudden they had to treat me different because I bought one of those vagina thingers. They might think I was too good for them or something.
SBP, I denounce you.
IRISHIST!!!
you know daley, marketing vagina lapel pins might be a good business – wear one as a talisman against harassment and obnoxiousness… EVERYONE can be special.
PP had got it figured out. He’s right.
Tell a feminist what good things you’ve done for women–break up a rape, for example–and “you want a cookie.”
Explain that men have it rough, too. Like being asked to change seats on an airplane if next to an unaccompanied child because you might be a perv. “Boofreakin’hoo.”
The only thing that will get you creds with the fems is autocastration and 24/7 lamenting about your unfair privilege.
PP has taken the latter course, and gets the creds. Unfortunately, they are not redeemable in any currency at all, with the possible exception that, if addressed, he is not addressed as “shithead”, which, I suppose, is something.
There is no good faith to be found with such feminists. There is no percentage in discussing anything with them.
There are a couple of things to do about it, each ending with ” ’em “, but I have a weak stomach.
Its too bad autocastration didn’t come with an automatic vocabulary upgrade, so PP could get away from his middle-school level of argument and name calling. I guess he thinks that proves to us that he really is an academic.
Darleen – The lapel pin idea is fine, but I think I’d like to put mine in a paper bag. Vagina in a bag. That way at various oppressed or stressful times I could wave it around and say, “See, I’ve got a Vagina, you can’t treat me this way” or threaten to whip it out. I could also open the top of the bag and talk to it and give it cutesy wootsie little nick names. I think it would be loads more fun and special than just a lapel pin.
Is that really PP who commented here? Is that the really what this guy brings to the discourse shed? Is this some backhanded way, on feministe’s part, to prove that “men” are really rather daft, easily-led morons?
Was there a “Sex in the City” marathon recently, and did I miss it?
To paraphrase another estimable scientist, “did you really think you could dissect us with such a blunt little tool…?”
I mean, like, wow.
That guy is a prof?
That guy is a prof?
Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
Now, now, poppa india. PhysioProf is just taking advantage of a teachable moment. He’s edifying the hoi polloi by providing an illustrative model of the logic, literacy, and empathy to which we can all aspire, once that outmoded Evil White Male stuff is purged from the physical sciences.
Somebody ought to tell the prof that the little girl in the logo with the pistol grip 870 is gonna get a natsy whack to the head when she pulls the trigger. Ooops. Guess I already did. Verisimilitude perfesser. Otherwise folks will figure you don’t know nuthin’.
perfesser caric or perfesser physioprof, who wins the dunce-off.
punctuation much?
Although I didn’t want to get into it in my prior post about PP’s incoherent and misplaced complaining, the manner in which he routinely chooses to express himself does raise questions about the credibility of his anecdotes.
In contrast, I recently called SEK a mendacious sack only after he had manifestly demonstrated that he fully intended to be one on the issue at hand. If that type of language was where I started with an issue, I would expect some to discount my writing immediately.
No, it boggles no minds worthy of being called such to think that PP is really a professor.
I got a wonderful idea for a short play entitled: “What PP Saw In the Faculty Club.” Here’s Act I, Scene I:
Setting: Wood-paneled lounge decorated with plush leather furniture. Two Male Scientists stand on a Safavid-era Persian carpet, smoking cigars and drinking glasses of port. They’re wearing black top hats, monocles and handlebar mustaches which they twirl evilly.
Male Scientist #1: I say, old bean, I’m raaather grateful that you asked me only softball questions at the last symposium. How lucky I am that the entire academic establishment gives me an easy time due to the shape of my groin, eh wot?
Male Scientist #2: Think nothing of it, old chum. But are you surprised? As a man, I only do things which unfairly assist other men. Naturally, I’d have reacted with visceral and uncontrollable hostility and disgust had you been a woman or differently-colored than I. (Cackles evilly, puffs cigar.)
Male Scientist #1: And I? I shall be scratching your back the next chance I get, the mediocrity and shoddiness of your work notwithstanding. All the better to protect our privileges which we’ve gained at the expense of more-talented women and minorities! Muwahahaha! (Cackles evilly, twirls mustache.)
(Earnest and Brilliant Female Scientist enters.)
Earnest and Brilliant Female Scientist: Goodness, is this the Faculty Club? No one told me we had one on campus.
Male Scientist #1: What?! A woman?! Entering OUR carefully-protected bastion of male privilege!!? (Bears fangs, drips venom and snarls.) BE GONE, INFERIOR CREATURE!! BE GONE!!!!!!
Male Scientist #2: INSOLENT FEMALE!!! Tremble in terror before our Mighty Oppression Penises! (Massages groin)
Earnest and Brilliant Female Scientist: (Gasps) Now I’ll NEVER discover the cure for cancer! (Bursts into tears and runs-away.)
THE END
Q30
Oooo…. twirly mustaches… you must add the fingering of twirly mustaches!
oops…. yes the twirl of mustache is there … my bad.
Q30 – Fainting and pearl clutching by the Earnest and Brilliant Female Scientist might be a nice touches as well.
I’m unsurprised at PhysioProf’s inability to reason. My experience of professors shows they cannot shake from their methods the ad hoc and special pleading fallacies. One can get all the way to a PhD having never studied even rudimentary logic.
Darleen wrote, 50 years ago an obnoxious drunk at a party that groped a women would have had the nearest men grabbing handfuls of his clothing and physically tossing him into the street – that is possibly after the woman had coldcocked him. Then the drunk, after he sobered up the next day, would have to spend a great deal of time publically repenting his behavior to every observer or continued to be shunned by polite society. There were accepted societal rules that people abided by.
Well, you’ve added an assault to just saying “I’m imagining you in a bikini.” Perhaps I can add something. Suppose the woman was talking frankly about sex on the beach. Surely she couldn’t complain about frankly sexual talk from the men present. There are as many ways the female could have created the opportunity for the “senior scientist’s” remarks.
As is the usual pattern of these discussions, the man is seen to be the thug and the woman a virginal victim. Feminism has so captured the discussion that it’s just assumed that women are virtuous and men are assumed to be not. Little or no thought is given to female vices.
Do remember those accepted rules that you reference also included bad behavior by women. Thuggish behavior by men was quickly handled, and whorish women were seen to be reaping what they sowed. By the standards you reference, modern women are behaving quite outrageously. In the good old days you reference, these women would be equally shunned by polite society. It seems that women still want it both ways: men must follow the rules of old society, while women get to be sassy (which means impudent or inappropriately bold, these days it’s considered a virtue in a woman) sluts. That’s not going to happen, and it shouldn’t.
If women want the old ways, then I think they must accept the old restrictions. If they want equality, then they must be responsible for themselves.
It’s all too easy to think “accepted societal rules” only apply to men. That is an error. It’s an error that leads to Title IX in the sciences. Then it is a grave error indeed.
Well, you’ve added an assault to just saying “I’m imagining you in a bikini.â€Â
Actually, jeff.y, I was referring to another incident that PP claims to have witnessed.–
I have been at an alcohol-soaked science-related social event where a male faculty member leeringly tried to feel up a junior female post-doc.
Actually, I just want an update of the old societal rules… ie people of good will police themselves and defend others where necessary.
I had the advantage of being the tallest kid in gradeschool and quite athletic to boot. While I was disconcerted by being tall, I was also glad when I could challenge bullies and get them to back off when picking on other kids.
There is a goodly amount of strong women in history, pioneer women worked and fought right alongside the men folk.
What I object to is the kind of default paralyzing inculcated in the populace by such as PP and ilk… witness bad behavior? Don’t DO anything, just have a lawyer on speed dial.
Darleen wrote, Actually, jeff.y, I was referring to another incident that PP claims to have witnessed.
Shoot. My bad. There were so many comments that I missed the good bits. Sorry ’bout that.
Darleen wrote, What I object to is the kind of default paralyzing inculcated in the populace by such as PP and ilk… witness bad behavior? Don’t DO anything, just have a lawyer on speed dial.
I gotcha. I totally agree. But crike! If one “does anything” about bad behavior by females, you will be toasted by all present. Women are unused to criticism or public correction. You must have seen this yourself at some point. There’s an eleventh commandment: thou shalt not criticize a woman. And every time a woman sheds a tear or throws a temper tantrum, we get a new law “protecting” women.
The women who want Title IX in the sciences are emblematic of a larger social movement. It seeks to secure special treatment for women in all areas, by making men responsible for the actions of women.
A woman and a man get drunk together, and then they have sex. The man is a rapist but the woman isn’t. The man is made responsible for the woman’s state of mind, but not the other way around.
A man and a woman marry, and then the wife gets pregnant from an infidelity. Husband is legally responsible for the child no matter the DNA evidence. A woman’s unilateral action can obligate a man to pay for a child that isn’t his.
I could go on, an on. There is a prevailing view, even among mainstream women who don’t think of themselves as feminists, that men are responsible for everything and women are entitled to everything. Yes, that’s hyperbole, but you know what I mean.
These crazy laws get passed because there is still general social agreement that men are responsible for women but women aren’t responsible for men. These days this is called ‘equality.’ TO defeat the craziness advocated by PhysioProf, we need to address the larger social beliefs and attitudes of women.
Some years ago, I stopped to help a lady who’d had a flat tire. Turns out the spare was flat, too. Nice, shiny, unused spare with only the ambient pressure inside it and a selection of soft plugs in the side wall like a bunch of bananas.
Tried to get some air into it at a gas station and the attendant blew the plugs across the service bay. I’d kind of expected that.
“What are my options?” the lady asked.
No fear, says I, and off we went to a tire store.
Back to the car, on goes the tire, and off she goes.
All good, I figured. How little I knew. She was a WOC (woman of color). Probably still is, now that I think about it. And I am a MOP (male of pallor).
So while I thought we were cheerfully schlepping around town in search of rubber fit to meet the road, I find from feministe and others that her heart was doubtless cracking with terror. One horrid scenario flashed through her mind, each worse than the last.
And when she wrote a thank you note, she was so traumatized that she forgot to thank me for not raping her and beating her to death.
I am so happy to be enlightened now. Sorry it took me so long.
Would it be inappropriate for me to mention that I’m wearing a bikini right now?
Carin – That would be completely inappropriate, unless you plan on providing link-y evidence. Please ;-)
There’s an eleventh commandment: thou shalt not criticize a woman.
Uh, point of order, Jeff.Y?
Have you ever seen what the Vagina Warriors say about me and other women like me?
Re comment #41:by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 7/19 @ 7:34 am #
in this case, an anecdote is a sufficient response to someone saying “X does not happen.â€Â
Who said that this does not happen? Be specific.
Comment 7, 26, and 33 all either express disbelief or mock the idea that these types of things actually happen. And that’s merely looking at the text of a single comments section on a single blog post.
Once you’ve done that, please demonstrate that:
a) sexual harassment is more prevalent in academia than it is in private industry
I never said that. I did say that due to the other negatives for a career in academia (i.e. lower salary and longer work hours for the an equivalently intelligent person), one of the big reasons people take the jobs is for quality of life issues. If harassment decreases quality of life, then harassed people will find other places to work. (i.e. industry with possibly equivalent harassment, some legal remedies, and more money for the same workload). The fact that the number of female, hard science PhDs working outside of academia would be higher than within supports this argument.
b) sexual harassment is more prevalent in the hard sciences than it is in fields with larger numbers of women (such as the social sciences and humanities)
Again, I never said such a thing, but in this case the non-academic careers don’t have as high a payoff so there’s less motive to leave academia due to harassment.
c) that stories about rude comments at conferences are the primary (or a primary) reason for women not going into the hard sciences.
I can’t say this is a the primary reason, but I know more than a few (both directly, inderectly, and who have blogs) who left academia or are considering leaving academia though harassment. I’m note sure of the #’s, but even if it’s only 5% of the women who leave academia, it’s not a trivial amount. Another larger group are the people who leave because of family policies at universities that are at least a decade behind most industry jobs relating to things like not scheduling evening meetings, minimal ways to leave for 1 or 2 years and return to a job, minimal temporary part-time options, etc.
Re: comment #44 by DonP on 7/19 @ 7:39 am #
bsci, I challenge you to find one woman on the planet who hasn’t. That’s not the point. The point is that the smart ones address it, either personally or through the system. The feministe types, on the other hand, whine about it and insist every man be castrated to protect them from the minority of assholes.
If you’ve read any of Physioprofs comments on his own blog, you’d realize he spends most of his time trying to address it. Also, regarding the above comments, one way to address working in a harassing environment that you don’t see changing in the next decade is to leave that environment for another. It’s not a sign of weakness, but it is to the detriment of universities who want the best employees.
I’m generally laughing at these comments where one person is accusing “the feminists” of wanting to castrate all men (based on what evidence?) while others think the best way to put down Physioprof is to say he isn’t a real man and show grow some balls. The echo chamber here and that lack of anyone willing to put down any data to support their own ideas is rather pitiful. Even the token women suggests that women should “grow a pair”
I have seen a very senior male scientist turn to a young female scientist in the context of a small group of men and women and state, “I’m imagining you right now in a bikiniâ€Â.
“I’m imagining YOU in a harness, ballgagged, chained to a–hey, wait! Where are you going? You don’t have to run!”
I mean, seriously.
Oh, and #95, please read #94, and then punch your stupid fucking face for your irony, you fucking moron.
Yours truly,
An old feminist who is appalled at the young generation of weeping willows who call themselves “feminist” nowadays. You lushlifed dimwits, what the fuck did you ever struggle against?
Oh great and knowledgable old feminist ushie, please educate a moron like me on what feminists should be doing nowadays. Yes things are better now than 100 years ago when you first struggled to get women the right to vote, but why should people still try to identify and fight the remains of unnecessary gender inequality?
Oh goody, now I’m a “token”. I knew using the phrase “grow a pair” would be like waving a free latte infront of a Frisco proggressive.
bsci
That “echo chamber” you sneer at is the one of your own making, where Teh Patriarchy(tm) and knapsacks full of privilege stand in for rational debated based on reality.
bsci
The genders are not the same, so you’re starting at with a false premise. Whether through ignorance or design, gender egalitarianism is neither attainable nor desirable.
But attempts to legislate it provide great cover for inherent authoritarians who want to use the power of the state to micromanage people’s personal choices.
First wave feminists fought for equality before the law: votes, property rights, etc. Second wave was about securing those rights and “raising consciousness” so women AND men understood choice and how equality of opportunity to pursue one’s dreams and find success according to individual talents enriched both men and women.
Contemporary Vagina Warriors? Engaging in flame-wars over who is the more authentic feminist? (lip-gloss wars, high heel wars, shaving wars, etc) Seeing everything through a prism of Man Bad, Woman Good (except for the gender-traitor women, of course … they are worse than men)
VW’s remind me of 3 am dorm room debates … all fuss fury and little connection to the real world.
Here is where you are full of it. The genders are NOT the same, but when a sizable population has the skills and interest to pursue profession X, but are turned in other directions due to harassment, sexism, and other factors that are not directly relevant to the ability to succeed in that profession, there is still a problem. In academia, this is still the case.
The interesting thing here is that it probably will correct itself through market rather than legal forces. Universities are realizing that they are losing some of the best candidates to other professions and losing good students. They need to address the problems if they want to stay at the top.
#29: PP writes
PP’s first post was a piece attacking John Tierney’s NYT piece on current Title IX investigations on science. In particular it was a series of ad hominem attacks, including expressions of disbelief at various studies suggesting other factors that may be at work as to why young women might prefer to study scinces like biology than sciences like physics. Apparently, it is a grievous error to infer from all of this that PP believes that discrimination drives women to select certain fields over others. And apparently he now claims he does not think the sexism he describes should be actionable (though as noted above, some of it clearly would be already).
If so, the conclusion to be drawn is that PP is complaining about this rampant sexism, but sees no role for the government in addressing it. It is simply howling into the wind, cursing the darkness, etc. Alternatively, he really does think the gov’t should be involved and is trying to play off the obvious implications of what he wrote with self-justifying BS over here.
bsci comments:
The key term there is interest. Tierney’s original piece cited research suggesting there is a gender disparity in interest long before students reach college and academia. Which is why my post on PP’s first post suggested Title IX is not going to be a productive way of addressing said disparity (assuming that it can be addressed in whole or in part). Moreover, bsci, like PP and others, are focused on harassment within academia, which was not the focus of what Tierney was surveying. If it as prevalent as bsci thinks, the effort should be to get the feds to stop prioritizing student choices (as most all of the gender socialization occurs before college) and start investigating malignant professors and academics instead. As I wrote in my post on PP’s first post, if feminists want to go after their fellow academics, I think it would be a service, and fun to watch.
bsci
Didn’t your momma warn you about not cleaning the wax outta your ears?
The genders are NOT the same, but when a sizable population has the skills and interest to pursue profession X, but are turned in other directions due to harassment, sexism, and other factors that are not directly relevant to the ability to succeed in that profession, there is still a problem.
No one here has said that obnoxious behavior was NOT a problem. What many of us object to is using the POWER OF THE STATE to solve every case of hurt feelings.
Quid pro quo? Legally actionable. Physical assault? Ditto. Someone saying “I’m imagining you in a bikini”, problematic but any person who lets something like that “wound” them and never figures out a way to confront such a doofus (or bully) is at least half the problem themself.
#82
Karl. I gotta give ya credit. You do raise the fuckin’ tone of the joint whenever you post somethin’. yer also a lot more patient wid da mopes than I would be. My first impulse bein’ ta hit em wit a stick.
Apparently, it is a grievous error to infer from all of this that PP believes that discrimination drives women to select certain fields over others.
Dude, you are really logic-impaired, aren’t you? Please explain how a belief that “discrimination drives women to select certain fields over others” entails a belief that Title IX should be applied to science.
If so, the conclusion to be drawn is that PP is complaining about this rampant sexism, but sees no role for the government in addressing it. It is simply howling into the wind, cursing the darkness, etc.
Dude, you’re supposed to be the personal-responsibility right-wing wackaloon! I’m surprised I have to spell this shit out for you.
How about the possibility that I think there is a serious problem with gender inequity in science, and that I also think that the key to any solution involves male scientists taking responsibility for their own actions and not behaving like misogynist assholes?
I had never heard of this place until you dorks linked to my guest posts over at Feministe. But then I made some inquiries, and was told that this is where the “most rational elements” of the right-wing wackaloon blogosphere hang out. I guess that says something about the milieu you are embedded in.
Karl
Tierney’s original piece cited research suggesting there is a gender disparity in interest long before students reach college and academia.
And that’s the rub of bsci’s “other factors”. PP and Vagina Warriors see differing interests as ‘proof’ of teh Patriarchy’s Conspiracy of putting girls in pink dresses and allowing them to play with dolls and VOILA, they then go into “subordinate to others” careers like MEDICINE.
Funny, but I never thought of “my daughter the doctor” as a line of whispered embarrassment.
That is some goalpost moving by the Vagina Warriors, eh?
To throw in my own personal anecdote, in my experience, other male chemistry, physics and geology undergrads tend to worship the ground under the feet of their female compatriots. It took a lot of courage to work up the nerve to invite them to the next LAN party.
I guess that says something about the milieu you are embedded in.
Ah, projection!
PP
Maybe you should ask yourself why men used to tend to act more like gentlemen without the threat of lawsuits or jail.
Today’s obnoxious behavior wouldn’t have anything to do with tossing out morality and ethics, especially when propagated by the god-botherers as “old fashioned” and “unhip”, now, would it?
PP
see #89
Quote me where you lay out that thesis in the post of yours I covered.
Karl
You should get a load of PP’s latest screed.
One could insulate a 5000 sq foot mansion with all that straw.
Once again PP affirms his academic stature, this time by referring to people here as dorks and wackaloons. Well, he’s won me over. Beyond that, what part of ” male scientists should take responsibility for their own actions…” does he think anyone disagrees with? And what’s that got to do with encouraging young girls to take an interest in science?
most rational, PP? You mean they get stupider? Daaaayuuum.
#115 cash
since PP is unwilling (or unable) to answer #112, you could give it a try
or is PP’s thesis of individual responsibility on double secret probation?
Oh No! Cashmoney doesn’t like us. How will we ever go on? I for one will drown my sorrows in a 24 year old single malt.
And after the scotch I may just dig up some old home movies of myself oppressing people when I was in college…good times.
Darleen-
50 years ago {…} that is possibly after the woman had coldcocked him.
“It was only 30 yrs ago, and I swear I never even touched her!”
I call it the “Patti Curtis” method.
She was the young lady who sat in front of me in my 9th grade science class. One Monday morning while suffering through another boring lecture, I leaned forward and made an especially crude conjecture about her weekend activities with her boyfriend.
She immediately turned and *Blammo!* slapped my ass silly! The teacher looked directly at me and said, “You probably deserved that, didn’t you?”- then simply continued his lecture.
Quick question PP. Why, when you witnessed this “Bikini imagining” incident did you not just say something to the effect of “Doctor, I believe that remark was inappropriate. You owe this person an apology.”
Years ago I was witness to such an event. I was in a meeting when an executive of another company made a similar remark to one of my subordinates. I told him what I thought of his remark. No apology was forthcoming so I ended the meeting. It’s not really that hard. You simply treat people with dignity and respect and stand up when you see something wrong. No need for the government.
bsci-
but when a sizable population has the skills and interest to pursue profession X, but are turned in other directions due to harassment, sexism, and other factors that are not directly relevant to the ability to succeed in that profession, there is still a problem.
How many men teach kindergarten or Grades One thru Three?
Profession X? That’s Patrick Stewart, right?
Modern Feminism seeks to level the playing field rather than just work harder and earn it. No?
Equality killed the gentlemen. Not lack of morals, maybe. Men just said, “fuck it, I give up”. Absence of morals just makes it easier to justify, I think. Meaning, one can go to church and know all the right moves. But, if she puts up barriers to it, it don’t mean shit.
Darleen, I agree with your comments on standing up for yourself. My wife capitulates to me from time to time (strong personality and all that) and it makes me mad when she does it. Because she later tries the guilt trip routine instead of just standing strong in the first place…..
#113: Darleen,
I can’t say PP’s comments here provide any motivation to check out whatever he’s writing at this point. I blockquoted the one part earlier, but I really could have done every sentence. For example:
PP wants to pretend that his post was not attacking an article about federal inquiries into applying Title IX to science departments (STEM, more broadly speaking)? If he thought that Title IX should not apply here, he could have written that, instead of a series of ad hominem attacks on people who suggest that Title IX is not the answer here. If he could show how some jackass thinking about his colleague in a bikini affects the preferences of study of 12-year-old girls, he would have come up with it by now.
Comment 7, 26, and 33 all either express disbelief or mock the idea that these types of things actually happen.
None of them deny that sexual harassment happens. They express varying degrees of disbelief in PhysioProfs specific anecdotes.
I never said that.
Again, I never said such a thing
I can’t say this is a the primary reason
In other words, you have no evidence that this explains the gender gap in the hard sciences, other than your “feelings”. The anecdotes you’ve provided apply equally to all academic disciplines, from what I can see.
Again, thanks for playing.
logic-impaired…wackaloon…misogynist assholes…dorks
Yawn.
You don’t even have the vocabulary to come up with interesting/original insults, much less debate the commentariat on this site.
Go back to your echo chamber. You’re simply embarrassing yourself at this stage.
well .. PhysioProf self-identified in his debut post as a “reactive” blogger with a self-confessed inability to process information and a penchant for teh potty mouth.
He then admitted he 1) lacks stature and/or balls when it comes to IRL situations and 2) well, hell, once a person admits that … what’s the fucking point?
For all of Feministe’s railing against Jeff, my *hunch* is that there are more examples of Jeff actually correcting male-behavior exhibited towards a female in real life than examples from the collected male bloggers/commentors at Feministe.
BECAUSE OF THE CATCH-WRESTLING!
Then again Dude, don’t be a douche might contain a recursive element.
LEBOWSKIPHOBE!!!
“….but are turned in other directions due to harassment, sexism, and other factors that are not directly relevant to the ability to succeed in that profession, there is still a problem. In academia, this is still the case.”
The vote? Hell, we should have never given them shoes.
Well, maybe those little ones, after we’ve squished up their feet.
I’m thinking the name “PhysioProf” is just a short, churched-up version of Physio-fitness Instructor. Get the mouth on that guy?
Re comment 107 and others:
Tierney says people don’t enter these fields because they just aren’t interested. He presents data from a few ideological organizations like AEI and doesn’t even try to present the data from counter-arguments. Here’s some data that shows the flaws:
http://www.aps.org/programs/women/workshops/upload/Mason_Mary_Ann_APS_Gender_Equity_Conference.pdf
The tenth slide shows a survey of graduate students in Physical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields from all UC campuses – a sizable percent (10%?) of all the grad students in the nation. When the women entered graduate school, 48% wanted to be research faculty and another 20% wanted to be teaching faculty. By the end of grad school only 25% wanted to be research faculty and 16% wanted to be research faculty. For men the numbers dropped from 44% to 32% and from 15% to 13%. How can innate interests be the cause if people reach the age of 25 before they realized that their planned career goals at age 21 no longer matter?
This presentation is focusing on parenting issues and policy issues relating to parents in academia, but slide 11 also notes that 46% of women and 50% of men sited negative experiences as a PhD student for why they lost interest in faculty positions. While it seems like men and women are roughly equal for this, it is only a subset of the data thus half of 27% of the female sample vs half of the 14% of men who changed their minds had negative PhD experiences.
So yes, Tierney’s argument is quite definitely bullshit.
Also, not all the differences are due to harassment, but the gender imbalance is definitely not purely due to innate differences in interests. Perhaps in an ideal world there are some innate differences and only 55% of physics faculty would be male and 45% would be female, but those are not the current #’s. While other, irrelevant factors, such as harassment and poorly designed job structures for women with children, are also clearly influencing people’s choices, the innate differences argument is only being used to argue against addressing these other factors.
PP: “I have been at a conference where all the big swinging dick male machers…”; Nice stereotyping there perfesser. What were the women’s characteristics? Not that you would have noticed.
Do you have any idea how hurtful this can be? Especially if you hear it constantly?
No, really.
bsci
If we need different job structures–i.e. more time off the tenure track for women–then we have admitted women can’t hack it the way men can and need special breaks.
If you think special breaks are warranted, say so.
Richard,
Read the results of the linked study. While this disproportionately affects women, it also affects men. That’s why the University of California promotes policy changes that apply to both men and women. See: http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ucfamilyedge.pdf
In addition, the issue isn’t that women need special breaks. It’s that parts of the system are unnecessarily designed in ways to push out certain groups of people. How does allowing 2-5 years of part-time work or a slightly delayed tenure clock to someone for a caregiving issue (either children or elderly parents) significantly affect total career productivity? Dozens of fields such as law and medicine realize that forcing people to choose between taking an 65-80hour per week job or ones 30’s or leaving a profession for life is a stupid way to recruit and keep the best candidates for jobs. These professions often have part-time options or ways for people to re-enter the field. Academia is way behind the curve and is losing top candidates because of this.
Richard, To put it another way. If you were hiring someone for a career length job in your company, would you prefer the top candidate who has a good chance of wanting to work part time for 3 of the next 10 years or the 2nd best (or 10th best) candidate who will never need to take such breaks. The lower candidate will be more productive for the few years when the better candidate would work part-time, but less productive for the other years?
This isn’t about special breaks. It’s about common sense and good business practices.
bsci, what’s wrong with Capitalism, specifically, the notion that one’s pay should be based ENTIRELY on the quantity/quality of one’s output, and should not be subsidized by one’s “special needs”? Does the idea of Survival Of The Fittest carry any weight in LeftyLand?
“Somebody ought to tell the prof that the little girl in the logo with the pistol grip 870 is gonna get a natsy whack to the head when she pulls the trigger. Ooops.”
I’ve said the same thing over and over. It is kind of unintentionally funny, as if PW’s banner had Jeff under an anvil held by a rope about to snap, but without understanding what happens when anvils hit people on the head. I have an 870, 2 3/4 with a pistol grip, and it is mostly useless – in the real world, you breach doors with them, but generally don’t skip about in overalls firing them hither and fro.
As for Professors and academics, I have had the distinct pleasure of deposing and crossing them on a few occasions, and can say without reservation that there is no better way to spend 6 hours fully clothed. It takes them a bit to understand that they do actually have to answer my questions as asked and are not allowed to ask me questions – then comes the uncomfortable squirming part and look of helplessness. It seems that pushing around captive 19 year olds does not sharpen one’s wit.
If I were hiring someone to work for my company, I would want that person to be fully productive as soon as possible. In some fields, say drug/medical research, putting off a lifesaving discovery for a few years for the sake of a an employees child care issues, could lead to some funerals.
Do you have any idea how hurtful this can be? Especially if you hear it constantly?
Why can’t women ever appreciate us big swinging dick types for our brains?!
How about the possibility that I think there is a serious problem with gender inequity in science, and that I also think that the key to any solution involves male scientists taking responsibility for their own actions and not behaving like misogynist assholes?
How about women taking responsibility for their own actions and not expecting preferential treatment because they can’t compete otherwise? I will admit I do not possess the logical ability to fathom how women need special treatment to prove their equality.
Re Challeron #138. I never said anything is wrong with capitalism or that people should be paid/hired based on the quality/amount of output. In fact, in my comment #101, I said that I think most of these changes are happening because of market forces. What I am saying is that many employers, especially academic departments are much more interested in total career output rather than short time periods. They are realizing it’s better to hire the best person and let them spend a few years with reduced workload and reduced pay rather than missing out on the significant grant dollars and recognition that the person might bring in for the rest of the career. Planning all company growth for only a year or two of growth without a longer term plan is a lousy way to run a company.
Here’s another scenario to poppa india #140. You have a great employee who has been with you for 4 years and wants to work part time for 2 years to take care of an ill parent. You have two options:
(1) Fire that person. Doing a new employee search to fill all job responsibilities. Waste time having that person learn the new job from the groud up.
(2) Let the person work part time. Hire another part time employee or a full time employee to work and get trained by the great employee. Know that you built significant company loyalty and very high productivity when the person returns to work full time.
I’m sure there are situations where people might choose option (1), but it seems that, in many cases, option (2) is the far superior choice. For a profession like academic research where long term productivity is key, (2) is a logical choice.
“I had never heard of this place until you dorks linked to my guest posts over at Feministe. But then I made some inquiries, and was told that this is where the “most rational elements†of the right-wing wackaloon blogosphere hang out. I guess that says something about the milieu you are embedded in.”
PP wants you to know s/he/it is very, very important on the internet. On the internet.
I might also opine that I am wholly unimpressed by PP’s rhetorical skills and facility with our fine English Language. I suppose Professoring is much more about posing, and much less about writing than I was previously led to believe.
bsci,
A desire/choice to work in academia vs. government or the private sector doesn’t indicate anything innate. An interest in math or engineering is innate. Slide 8 offers perfectly reasonable causes for the change in women’s decisions, despite calling them “leaks” and illustrating them with ominous blue lightning bolts, marriage and children most notable.
It also bears noting that at the later time, men and women are making almost the exact same choices regarding their career paths with the only significant difference being within academic careers, with 10% more women going into teaching and 10% more men going into research. The major change in women’s choices is that 14% more are looking into private sector/govt employment. There’s also an obvious explanation for that: money.
I fail to see where there’s a problem here, or how this discounts Tierney’s thesis.
Pablo,
I think you miss the point. The issue is the proportional lack of women in the faculty of certain academic fields. Some of this lack is due to a slightly lower interest due to innate differences or earlier discouragements. Still, many fields, such as biological sciences have an almost 50/50 gender ratio entering graduate school, but grossly biased gender distributions among even new faculty members. In addition, many of these women clearly wanted to be faculty when entering grad school so this isn’t even an issue of men and women getting PhDs for different reasons.
If Tierney was right that the dominant reason for the gender bias of faculty was innate differences then we’d see a divergence significantly earlier than a survey of future interests of first year graduate students. Understand?
As for women looking for more money, why aren’t men also looking for more money? Why do women’s goals change so much more than men’s? This data shows that poor family growth options are at least one factor beyond money that is affecting women’s decisions.
But you’re not demonstrating that. In fact, slide 11, which details the reasons given for changing career goals finds men and women with similar percentages in all reasons except “issues related to children” and “issues related to spouse/partner”. And those are attributable to innate differences between men and women. If this were a matter of discrimination, one would expect to see a significantly higher percentage of women citing “negative experience as PhD student”, but as it turns out, 4% more men cite that than women.
According to that research, they’re doing so in equal numbers, with 53% of men and 54% of women choosing to leave academia and go into the private/govt sector.
Which has nothing to do with discrimination, harassment or the like. It is a lifestyle choice, such as the one that finds our esteemed host out of academia and parenting his child full time. If part time/flex time options are workable, then I’m all for implementing them. But I fail to see an injustice inherent in not having them, perhaps because I don’t see a need for perfect gender distribution in any particular career field. What I do see a need for is a level playing field, and I don’t see where it is not level.
How can innate interests be the cause if people reach the age of 25 before they realized that their planned career goals at age 21 no longer matter?
There are very few young adults going through college that actually stay with the same career goals (or even planned majors) they started out with.
bsci
IMO the resistence you find here is not that no one sees the vagaries that exist in human interaction, good/bad behavior of individuals and how any institution – public or private, can encourage or discourage the people within it – the problem here is the “cry wolf” approach of leftists when looking at a slice -this time “hard science” in academia – seeing a beancounting difference and declaring it genderism.
Smart managers are flexible when they want to retain talent. If a certain area is not offering flexibility it is because they feel their pool of talent is so broad or deep they don’t have to bother. This is how payscales are determined, too.
(tangently, that points out the hypocrisy of Leftists who oppose any law enforcement against illegal aliens yet refuse to consider how illegals affect wages)
People can and do “vote with their feet” and an organization that realizes it is NOT attracting or retaining the best talent will adjust (private much faster than public). My DA office where I worked for ten years had a huge problem with losing some top notch, young attorneys (mostly female) going to other counties or even private practice because the elected DA at the time would hear none of “job sharing”. When another DA was elected, one of the first things he did was institute several non-monetary changes that stopped the talent drain, both in attorneys and seasoned clerks – ie job sharing, flex hours like 9/80’s.
There is much to be said for such management decisions, but they need to be made within organizations, not imposed from without via government or judicial fiat.
Pablo, Teirney was not talking about harassment and I was saying harassment was only one factor of many issues including jobs which are unnecessarily family unfriendly. The fact that there are factors besides innate differences in professional interests is what kills Tierney’s arguement.
Darleen, This is beyond the undergrad period. This is the point where someone decides to devote an additional 5+ years of low income to become a specialist in a very specific field. These people are clearly interested in whatever topic they plan to study. The fact that their career goals relating to those fields are altered along gender lines is something worth study to understand why.
I think we generally agree that this needs to be done more by the organizations rather than my governmental or judicial fiat. The University of California case is a perfect example. They are not getting the best candidates because a portion of them were going to places with more flexible work options. They did a top down review of the tenure system and figured out places where they can add flexibility and make the jobs more desirable without decreasing the quality of the work done. This sounds exactly like the type of thing you are talking about here. What’s the problem?
I think the Tieney screed about Title 9 was essentially a straw man to prop up his weak argument on innate differences. Until I see real examples of an actual application of title 9 changes rather than just surveys and examinations of the workforce, I think this is merely a fake right wing talking point. (Sort of like your non sequitor about illegal immigration when most on the left want to see the immigration laws changed rather than continuing a system where I huge portion of immigrants are illegal. You might disagree, but it helps not to misrepresent others).
But you haven’t demonstrated that harassment has any significant impact on gender distribution. And “family unfriendliness” is going to have a significant impact because of the innate differences between men and women.
On a tangent, gender bias in the court system also has an impact. The vast majority of single custodial parents are women and will necessarily have less available time to devote to work. So, what say we get the family courts to order custody to men more equally, thereby freeing lots of those women up to dedicate more time to the rigors of their careers?
That fact is not in evidence in any significant form.
Oh, and the numbers you provided, bsci, demolish PhysioProf’s argument.
#137 . If you were hiring someone for a career length job in your company, would you prefer the top candidate who has a good chance of wanting to work part time for 3 of the next 10 years or the 2nd best (or 10th best) candidate who will never need to take such breaks. The lower candidate will be more productive for the few years when the better candidate would work part-time, but less productive for the other years?
This example assumes that the pool of applicants can clearly be ranked hierarchically, that the woman is the highest ranked, and that we can assume a significant productivity difference between Candidate #1 and Candidate #2.
In the real world most applicants are clustered pretty closely together in terms of qualifications. If I was a hiring manager I can imagine making a rational decision to hire a male applicant coming coming out of school with a 3.8 GPA who will need to be the future breadwinner for his family over the female applicant with a 3.9 GPA who will have the option of entering and leaving the workplace at will because her husband is the primary breadwinner, especially if she informs me that she expects to drop out for a period of time to raise children.
Furthermore, your example assumes that the hiring manager has the prescience to know that Candidate #1 will opt to work part-time for only three years and then jump back into full-production mode for another seven. In reality, the hiring manager knows that the female candidate may never return to the work-force full-time after having children, even if it was her original stated intention to do so.
Aldo
At one time that may have been a “rational” decision (but still pretty insulting) but not any longer. There are more intact families where it is dad that opts for parttime or fulltime child rearing than ever before (because mom holds the better paying job). A smart hiring manager in the private sector also knows that talent rarely stays in one position more than five years. Real estate is location location location, hiring is talent talent talent. Anything else (racism, sexism, etc) is stupid stupid stupid.
That is something my father taught me decades ago long before discrimination lawsuits were ever thought of. He said “any business owner that doesn’t hire the best talent to do the best job for the company, deserves it when the business falters and fails”
The issue is the proportional lack of women in the faculty of certain academic fields.
And yet you have failed to show that the issues you’ve brought up (inadequate family leave, a more liberal tenure clock, etc.) affect those fields more than they do the fields that do have more women, despite having been repeatedly asked to do so.
Since such employment policies are generally standardized across the university, they can’t possibly be the cause.
Darleen,
My overall point was that most groups of applicants are similar enough at the outset that no manager could imagine, much less assume, that one applicant would be able to drop out of the workforce (fully or partially) for three to five years and still outperform another applicant over a ten year period.
In elaborating this point I came up with a hypothetical example in which a hiring manager knows that one applicant intends to ambitiously pursue the career, and another applicant with marginally better qualifications expresses an intent to place the career on the back burner for awhile to raise children. Frankly, in this example I would choose the candidate who prioritizes the career.
I did not mean that it is fair assume all male applicants are breadwinners and all female applicants are not. Maybe I should have reversed the genders in my hypothetical example to make that clear.
bsci
Until I see real examples of an actual application of title 9 changes rather than just surveys and examinations of the workforce,
Please explain to me why REVIEWS done under Title IX should not be worrisome or worthy of discussion only because they haven’t yet lead to actually applying Title IX? I mean, bsci, why would anyone be doing such reviews if actually applying Title IX wasn’t already reserved and set to trigger if the reviews came back “Oh yes, looky, more men than women – FIRE”?
Do you bring along, promote, increase the pay of, the part timer as fast as the fulltimer? What do you tell the fulltimer, if you do?
If you don’t, then you’ll have….presto! discrimination. Lots of women part timers lagging behind the predominantly male fulltimers. More discrimination angst. What’s not to like?
Pablo
I’ll try to use small words to make this clear. Tierney wrote that gender differences in academia are due to innate differences in interests and there’s no reason to expect any other factors will change these differences. The data shows that other factors beyond interests affect the gender ratios. Therefore, Tierney is wrong. You might be able to say that interest in family has a gendered component, but that wasn’t Tierney’s argument. He wasn’t saying that there are less women in hard science because they’d prefer to raise a family. He was saying there were less women because they just weren’t interested in hard science.
Physioprof was making a similar argument to me. He was saying there are other factors that turn women off including harassment. He never said harassment was the only factor and he never said it was even the dominant factor. He did say that it exists and it is a type of harassment that rarely can be solved by the legal system. 46% of women who left the faculty track did so because of negative experiences during grad school. This might not all be harassment, in no way, does this data prove PhysioProf wrong.
Aldo, I’m fairly sure that hiring a man over a woman because you think he’ll be the a family breadwinner and you assume a women would go part-time is flagrantly illegal. I agree with Darleen that you really do want to hire the best candidate. From what I’ve seen from academic searches, even the final candidates are often very different in quality and direction of research. In addition, your goal is to hire for 20+ years and not 5 years. Thus it’s even more important to take the long-term view when hiring both in quality and research fit within the department. Again both candidates want to ambitiously pursue the career. It’s just that one might need a few slower years at one point. Going back to my other example. If the person you hired unexpectedly need to work part time, would you fire them or give them a part-time option?
Spies 154, These issues do affect all departments. Can you find a single field where the percent of women faculty (even % women pre-tenured faculty) is higher than the % of women in grad school for that field. The drop varies across fields, but it’s always there. You keep whining about data so here’s your chance to present some. The drop is bigger in science/engineering probably because the job options that use the degree skills out of academia and more varied and pay better so, even if the tenure policies are similar, the balance of academia vs. industry/government is different.
Darleen 156, I honestly never heard of these Title 9 studies before the Tierney article and he gave no information on how they are working. In the more abstract do you agree that collecting this type of data and trying to understand what factors affect people’s career choices is a good thing? IF these Title 9 studies come back with CLEAR evidence that a significant reason for some of the gender imbalances are factors such as harassment or unnecessarily inflexible leave policies that something needs to change? If title 9 was used to provide clear guidelines about what can be changed in the hiring/tenure system to make it more fair, would you consider that a good thing? The only stick the government has would be to cut federal funding and frankly I’d expect universities to want to make changes well before anything like that happened.
157 Richard, I think a part-time job usually means a part-time salary. One of the common policy changes is allowing a delay of the tenure clock (i.e. delaying evaluation for promotion).
In the more abstract do you agree that collecting this type of data and trying to understand what factors affect people’s career choices is a good thing?
Certainly, but not by the government or with government funds. Period.
IF these Title 9 studies come back with CLEAR evidence that a significant reason for some of the gender imbalances are factors such as harassment or unnecessarily inflexible leave policies that something needs to change?
Split that in two sentences, bsci, because you are linking two very different things. Quid pro quo harassment is legally actionable and any finding of such should be exposed and dealt with. “Unnecessarily inflexible leave” is interesting to note and to publicize, it is also none of the government’s business. Period.
If I want to run a traditional, 40 hr/9-5 shop and not accomodate family matters for anyone, OR if I want to run a business where employees have flex hours, generous family leave, etc, that’s my decision, not the government’s. Period.
Title IX was/is always bogus and has done more harm than good when it comes to sports in school. For whatever good intentions, the consequences of bean-counting meddling easily show it is a path to hell. For even the slightest hint that it would move from the relatively inconsequential arena of sports to SCIENCE for pity’s sake is alarming. It needs to be stopped now, not later.
Oh, btw, bsci, in private business one HOPES to hang on to talent more than five years (so the company tries to figure out ways, tangible and intangible, to do so) but it is not the usual majority.
Government entities are entirely different.
Pity.
These issues do affect all departments.
So you’re admitting that the whole “Title IX for the Sciences” whinefest was a waste of everyone’s time.
You keep whining about data so here’s your chance to present some.
I’m not the one making the claims here. You and PhysioProf are.
Hint: look into the concept of “burden of proof”.
Darleen, are government grants to study these topics is that acceptable? Is any government research on the nation’s workforce or workforce conditions worthwhile? Would you prefer a world where the government didn’t even bother to calculate things like employment rates?
If I want to run a traditional, 40 hr/9-5 shop and not accomodate family matters for anyone, OR if I want to run a business where employees have flex hours, generous family leave, etc, that’s my decision, not the government’s. Period.
What if 60%+ of your business came from the government in the form of grants. Then your business is the government’s business. You might not like how much the government subsidizes the nation’s education and basic research, but it is the way things currently are. Why shouldn’t the government be able to audit how it’s money is being spent and who is given access to the money? If a university was run as a pure private foundation, that would be a different situation, but I don’t think there is a single such case in the entire country (possibly the world)
Spies, So you’re admitting that the whole “Title IX for the Sciences†whinefest was a waste of everyone’s time.
As I said to Darleen. I think collecting data is a good thing and better understanding why and how differences form is a good thing. I don’t know much about Title 9, but if it is a good mechanism for data collection, I have no problem with that. Frankly, I think Tierney was just using this application of Title 9 as a strawman to push is innate differences arguments and I don’t think it has much relevance to the bigger pictures.
You seem to be supporting the theory that most of the differences are innate and specific to the sciences. I presented data that contradicts this hypothesis. I also presented other ideas that can explain the same final effects beyond the innate differences concept. This is when you are supposed to find additional information that supports your hypotheses or accept the fact that your hypothesis does not model all the data. You claim to have an academic background so understanding how scientific reasoning works shouldn’t be too hard for you.
bsci. So, with a disproportionate number of the part timers being women, the employer is discriminating.
Recall that Sears spent $10 mill, back when that was real money, defending itself against the EEOC’s charge that they kept women out of the big-ticket sales departments. Sears spent the bucks to prove that they offered but the women weren’t taking. So, under your scheme, the employer has to prove he isn’t discriminating. I see your point.
If, say, leave policies are unnecessarily rigid, then there must be some benefit to loosening them up. Why are employers absorbing the costs of keeping them unnecessarily rigid when they could get the benefits of a more flexible policy? IOW, what’s “unnecessary” about the policies and what’s “inconvenient” to your scheme? Is there a difference?
Darleen, are government grants to study these topics is that acceptable?
No.
Is any government research on the nation’s workforce or workforce conditions worthwhile?
Only in very narrow circumstances. Safety, health, measurement of hours worked, etc are acceptable. My problem comes with research that is directed at its inception to “find evidence” to backup policy proposals already in the works. Think of Tobacco funded cigarette research.
I don’t know much about Title 9,
May I respectfully suggest you look into it, especially on how it has affected school sports programs, before tossing your support behind it.
You seem to be supporting the theory that most of the differences are innate
No, I don’t believe I every explicitly or implicity stated anything close to that. Let me make myself clear… differences in the macro numbers are a combination of all manner of factors, and from one measurement to another, each factor will move up or down the scale of importance. Even the importance is subjective.
What I see here is a subject that is and should remain in the social sphere. It is one of social persuasion – questions on the education of boys and girls, early influences, mass media, peer pressure, etc – perfect subjects for think tanks, private funds at universities, articles in newspapers/magazines, television documentaries. But it is not a subject that the government should get into – it is not the proper function of the government anymore than the government fund research into the minute differences and workings of this nations various religions. Or sex practices for that matter.
, I’m fairly sure that hiring a man over a woman because you think he’ll be the a family breadwinner and you assume a women would go part-time is flagrantly illegal.
I could imagine how you would interpret my argument this way based on my poorly constructed comment #152, but since I clarified that it isn’t what I meant at #155 I don’t understand why you are persisting in misconstruing it.
The thought exercise you presented to Richard at #137 postulates a female job applicant who is so much more qualified than the next most qualified (male) applicant that she could be expected to outperform him over a 10-year period even though she takes a few years during that period to have children while he keeps plugging away at the job. It seems to me that such a scenario would be conceivable only in a case where the female was a highly-qualified super-genius and the male is a drooling idiot. In a more typical employment situation the #1 and #2 candidate/employee will be close enough in qualifications that a few extra years on the job could be expected to generate enough extra productivity to show up in #2’s compensation.
An economist would say that #2 has earned a compensation premium for an extra three to five years of service, or that #1 has given a discount in exchange for time off. This holds true regardless of gender. The only reason gender factors into it is that in our culture the person seeking time off for raising children is more likely to be the woman.
The implicit threat that Congress is making to university science departments with the Title IX studies is that they will cut funding or legislate new civil litigation causes of action unless the universities preempt that by defensively using quotas to guarantee superficially equal employment outcomes which ignore the legitimate labor market factors that tend to produce statistical gender disparities in studies like this.
One final point: The development of easy-to-use analytical software has made it easy for social “scientists” to produce impressive-looking statistical studies to support whatever political agenda they are pushing. Often these studies are scientifically worthless.
bsci
To clarify myself even more .. while I am not a “libertarian”, I hang out pretty close to that wing of conservatism. Government has three major legitimate functions: protection of citizens from harm from outside the nation – military (all aspects including intelligence gathering); protection of citizens from harm within the nation – police/fire/etc; a forum for the neutral/objective resolution of conflict – judiciary. Every other so-called government program is highly suspect as to legitimacy.
I presented data that contradicts this hypothesis.
Pardon me, but you’ve done nothing of the sort.
You’ve argued that there are structural issues in academia as a whole.
Your data showing that a higher percentage of women lost interest in tenured faculty positions does absolutely nothing to refute the innate differences hypothesis. I know that I, personally, didn’t fully understand what was involved with acquiring and maintaining a tenured faculty position until I was well into grad school.
It does exact a serious toll on your family life; one that I’m not willing to accept myself. I see no reason to think that women wouldn’t make a similar decision at a disproportionately higher rate — especially since it’s much more socially acceptable for women to moderate their career goals for the sake of family life.
You claim to have an academic background so understanding how scientific reasoning works shouldn’t be too hard for you.
Says the person who’s making claims without a single convincing scrap of evidence.
Richard #164 If, say, leave policies are unnecessarily rigid, then there must be some benefit to loosening them up. Why are employers absorbing the costs of keeping them unnecessarily rigid when they could get the benefits of a more flexible policy? IOW, what’s “unnecessary†about the policies and what’s “inconvenient†to your scheme? Is there a difference?
I think we can’t define “unnecessary” without data. This data is being collected by many universities (not through these title 9 investigations). Many universities are finding flaws in their systems and are changing. The reasons the policies having changed until now is that we needed the data to see the weaknesses of the current system and the best way to make changes. These new reviews very much are due to the rise of flexible options in industry and academia losing some of the best candidates.
Darleen, I have a question about how your libertarianism fits into the existing systems. As you know, our government spends money on many other things. For example I think we spend around $50billion of taxpayer dollars to fund basic and applied research through NIH, NSF, and DOD. Regardless of whether you think this is how we should be spending our money, it is being spend and a virtually every elected representative and serious candidate supports these investments to some extent. This spending isn’t going way anytime soon. Given that we are spending this money, do you think we should be spend at least a fraction of this money on surveys and audits to make sure that this money is being distributed in a fair manner?
Aldo,
The implicit threat that Congress is making to university science departments with the Title IX studies is that they will cut funding or legislate new civil litigation causes of action unless the universities preempt that by defensively using quotas to guarantee superficially equal employment outcomes which ignore the legitimate labor market factors that tend to produce statistical gender disparities in studies like this.
I don’t think this is true. If the goal was perfectly equal gender ratios through quotas, then no research would be required. Just state the goal and set a quota. The fact that there is research shows that they are trying to figure out why the ratios are are skewed and figure out what really should be done to remove biases from the system.
I’ve also said it before, but, for the faculty searches I’ve seen the candidates are rarely very similar. There usually is one candidate that seems to be the clear best fit and that person doesn’t always take the job. I also know many other great people who don’t bother applying and go straight to industry because they want more flexibility.
As for a blanket insult of social sciences, there is clearly a wide range of quality and many bad studies. Still, if you know what you’re doing and read the data and methods, it’s usually very easy to assess the quality of a study. I have a few complaints about the Mason study I linked to, but the core data and analysis is of very high quality.
Spies,
Let’s try this again. Tierney is talking about innate differences in academic interests. He says there are fewer female science professors because fewer women are interested in science. This data shows that there are fewer female science professors because, while women are equally or almost equally interested in science enough to enter PhD programs, they are less interested in becoming professors due to factors beyond their interest in science. The reason this is relevant is because if woman are interested and smart enough to become professors, but don’t do it for other reasons such as a desire to raise a family then it is possible to make changes to the hiring and tenure process to improve gender balance. If Tierney’s innate difference idea is correct then absolutely nothing we do would significantly raise the number of women in science faculty.
Does this make sense yet?
You’ll be better off reading the ones already here.
The data shows those choices being made for reasons that are attributable to the innate differences between men and women. That you choose not to see them as such, while proposing solutions that definitively indicate that they would most benefit women, is not terribly logical.
If your argument is that Tierney didn’t include every possible permutation in which innate differences will impact the gender ratio, and therefore he is wrong, well…um…..ok. But it seems the only thing we’ve established as an identifiable issue here is that women are more likely to choose not to prioritize an academic career in physics over family related pursuits. Who is harmed by that?
The reason this is relevant is because if woman are interested and smart enough to become professors, but don’t do it for other reasons such as a desire to raise a family then it is possible to make changes to the hiring and tenure process to improve gender balance.
Indeed, let’s try this again.
1) Tenure policies are usually consistent across the university
2) Women are well-represented in other academic fields.
3) Therefore, the tenure policy is not the primary reason for a gender imbalance in the sciences.
It’s not hard to follow if you try.
You tried to handwave this off by claiming that women in the sciences have better opportunities in industry. So? Wouldn’t that make them better off than the women in other academic disciplines? Shouldn’t any remedy be focused on those women first?
Sheesh.
Do you see the problem with that statement? Women who choose to do something else aren’t all that interested. Again, if flex time or some such fits into the model, or is the model can be adjusted to work as well or better with it, then I’m fine with that. But the issue here is lifestyle choices and I don’t see a problem that needs fixing with people making them. Neither do I see that the field necessarily suffers because there isn’t an equal gender distribution within it’s ranks.
Neither do I see that the field necessarily suffers because there isn’t an equal gender distribution within it’s ranks.
Pablo, I think you’ve hit upon bsci’s (unstated) assumption. The pseudo-argument he/she is making is that every single field of human endeavor needs to be perfectly balanced with regard to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, and (no doubt) right- and left-handedness, and that this factor trumps all others.
That argument would be a lot more plausible if the same people were arguing that 50% of kindergarten teachers should be men, that men should get child custody in a divorce 50% of the time, that 74% of gangsta rappers should be white, and that 27% of kosher butcher shop owners should be Catholic.
Oddly, though, that never seems to come up.
Another unstated assumption is that being an academic is the most desirable job on the face of the planet. It isn’t, for a lot of reasons. Dull grant paperwork, long, boring committee meetings… personally, if I wanted to spend my life dealing with that stuff I’d have become a lawyer and gotten paid for my troubles (law, of course, is another field in which reality doesn’t quite mesh with the image; I was cured of any romanticism I had with the law by some field trips to court my high school law class took. Listening to a lawyer read a deposition for 30 minutes in a monotone sort of took the glow off what TV had led me to expect).
I don’t regard it as particularly tragic if a woman (or man) with a degree in engineering, chemistry, or physics decides to work for Intel, Pfizer, or Boeing instead. It’s not like they’re flipping burgers.
SBP, yeah. I’m often told, and have been since I was a kid, that I should become a lawyer. I chose not to do that. Should the practice of law be changed so that I’d find it palatable enough to enter? Well, that’d be nice, but I’m not about to factor it into my budget, if you know what I mean. And yet, America totally suffers my absence from the legal profession, and I suffer for the loss of all that sweet, dirty money.
/where do I collect my check?
As for a blanket insult of social sciences, there is clearly a wide range of quality and many bad studies. Still, if you know what you’re doing and read the data and methods, it’s usually very easy to assess the quality of a study.
The Title IX studies are being carried out due to pressure from Congress (read: politicians). “Science” that is done for the purpose of furthering politicians’ agendas does not get a presumption of innocence from me.
Does Title IX science include The History of Knowledge, or The History of Feminism, or Socioligical Phallic Purturbations in WQestern Europe Since 1894?
Just wondering.
Single minded pursuit of equality will result in hideous confirmation of the law of diminishing returns.