17 July 2008

Gender Jihad: Title 9 in Science, Forced Quotas for Women in Science and Engineering

Why does the US National Science Foundation want to force a gender quota system on one of the few areas of academia that still operates largely as a meritocracy? What will happen to science, if faculty and research positions are based upon gender rather than ability?
The members of Congress and women’s groups who have pushed for science to be “Title Nined” say there is evidence that women face discrimination in certain sciences, but the quality of that evidence is disputed. Critics say there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s.

In this debate, neither side doubts that women can excel in all fields of science. In fact, their growing presence in former male bastions of science is a chief argument against the need for federal intervention.

Despite supposed obstacles like “unconscious bias” and a shortage of role models and mentors, women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.’s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences. They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering. Even though their annual share of doctorates in physics has tripled in recent decades, it’s less than 20 percent. Only 10 percent of physics faculty members are women, a ratio that helped prompt an investigation in 2005 by the American Institute of Physics into the possibility of bias.

...starting at age 12, the girls tended to be better rounded than the boys: they had relatively strong verbal skills in addition to math, and they showed more interest in “organic” subjects involving people and other living things. Despite their mathematical prowess, they were less likely than boys to go into physics or engineering.

But whether they grew up to be biologists or sociologists or lawyers, when they were surveyed in their 30s, these women were as content with their careers as their male counterparts. They also made as much money per hour of work. Dr. Lubinski and Dr. Benbow concluded that adolescents’ interests and balance of abilities — not their sex — were the best predictors of whether they would choose an “inorganic” career like physics.

A similar conclusion comes from a new study of the large gender gap in the computer industry by Joshua Rosenbloom and Ronald Ash of the University of Kansas. By administering vocational psychological tests, the researchers found that information technology workers especially enjoyed manipulating objects and machines, whereas workers in other occupations preferred dealing with people.

Once the researchers controlled for that personality variable, the gender gap shrank to statistical insignificance: women who preferred tinkering with inanimate objects were about as likely to go into computer careers as were men with similar personalities. There just happened to be fewer women than men with those preferences.

....the campaign for gender parity infantilizes women by assuming they don’t know what they want. She interviewed women who abandoned successful careers in science and engineering to work in fields like architecture, law and education — and not because they had faced discrimination in science.

Instead, they complained of being pushed so hard to be scientists and engineers that they ended up in jobs they didn’t enjoy. “The irony was that talent in a male-typical pursuit limited their choices,” Ms. Pinker says. “Once they showed aptitude for math or physical science, there was an assumption that they’d pursue it as a career even if they had other interests or aspirations. And because these women went along with the program and were perceived by parents and teachers as torch bearers, it was so much more difficult for them to come to terms with the fact that the work made them unhappy.” _NYT_via_Slashdot
Why do US government agencies wish to force more women into professions and careers that they would not otherwise choose for themselves? Because the abstract concept of "gender equity"--the perceived need for women to compose at least half the members of any high profile or high prestige group. Whether individual women wish to be part of this "grand gender crusade" or not.

Institutions of science and engineering are being forced into a position where valuable time is diverted to filling out reams of paperwork to satisfy government gender busybodies. But, of course, nothing will ever satisfy them. Until all successful and productive institutions are subjugated to the gender jihad, no one will have peace.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thursday, 17 July, 2008  
Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

My favorite Islamic apostate blogger, a Pakistani born Canadian refugee from Islam who goes by the name Isaac Schrodinger became the subject much acrimony from another apostate of the female persuasion when he dared to suggest that women's choices in careers ought to be respected even if it lead to an imbalance in gender representation for various fields.

I wonder if the best way to settle the issue might be to be efficient in our approach to the matter. Since quotas are too hard to manage with the need for recruitment and retention and all, just ban women from the fields where they are over represented. It will have the same effect - women who would otherwise enter one field would have to enter another if they want a higher education - but would be far more practical in implementation. I seem to remember that there are more women in university these days than men so they can afford to loose a few who just don't want to make the switch without resulting in an over all loss of equality on campuses. It would also provide some perspective on the issue.

Thursday, 17 July, 2008  
Blogger Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Back in the early 90's, when I was still an engineering student, the college I attended made a big push for women.

The typical ratio was 10 men for every woman. The administration managed to get the ration to under 5:1. The result wasn't pretty. Far higher percentage of the women failed / dropped out than the men. A number of them just hated what they were doing. One woman I knew personally changed her majors three times in the hope of finding one that did make her ill. She was not alone. I don't remember a single male changing a major so many times. My friend eventually dropped out herself, racked with school loans and the knowledge she wasted three years of her life.

Thursday, 17 July, 2008  
Blogger Snake Oil Baron said...

While I am a guy, I can certainly relate since I went to several educational programs before I found the right degree and I would have been better off waiting but the idea that everyone who can should go to university right out of high school leads to a lot of bad decisions. If you are also faced with "advice" that is designed to further social engineering instead of what is right for you it would no doubt lead to no good for anyone.

I know personally and by reputation, many women who are well suited to and interested in science and engineering and I have heard anecdotal reports that the percentage is rising in the absence of intervention but the idea that we know that a 50/50 split is needed or achievable seems less and less credible as time goes by.

Thursday, 17 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Female as Property Movement (tm) is growing.

We, the people, need to save society AND those daffy dames from themselves.

The FPM does allow the FEW females with proven abilities, who have escaped the typical emotion-laden illogical self-centered ultra-materialistic bauble-loving inane irrational behaviors typical of the vast majority of "American Princesses."

I, and many other males, believe that American females are the most spoiled broads on the planet.

Ready to grasp every privelege and right imaginable, MOST females seem to ignore the concept of the responsibilities that accompany those rights and priveleges.

Somewhat akin to American society in the 1800s but adapted to today's social structure, it is time to protect the girlies from themselves... and to protect males from their female inanity and hopefully to right the many wrongs within society as a whole perpetrated by the daffy dames.

Thursday, 17 July, 2008  
Blogger al fin said...

The only active "female as property movement" that I know about is the Islamic religion. In western countries such a movement falls within the fictitious "backlash" residing only in the minds of Susan Faludi and her easily duped readers.

Faludi and her friends better pray there never is a real backlash, because if there is, the Islamists will be at the forefront of it. At that point, burkhas and religious police will be in style.

Friday, 18 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thursday, 05 February, 2009  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts