“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
A 1960s advertising agency? No, that is the White House during the Obama administration, according to former White House communications director Anita Dunn. Yet when interviewed about her own statement later, she said, The White House “was not a hostile environment” and that President Obama “values having strong women around him.”
There has been one golf outing that had a female hitting the links with the president who won a landslide number of votes from progressives in 2008 - but at the time of this writing he has played golf 76 times. He named former Harvard president Larry Summers as chairman of his National Economic Council, despite Summers having a controversial departure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suskind-book-female-advisers-in-…
Women are prejudiced against themselves, women don't have better relationships because of romance novels. Are those claims made by 1960s advertising executives? No, by female academics - progressive women are more biased against the abilities of women than the writers of "Mad Men".
The responses are what you would expect when the data disagrees; "One thing that this study does not address and should not be discounted is how women feel being in the minority in a field." in http://www.science20.com/news_articles/sex_discrimination_go_byebye_gen…
My response: Do men drop out of psychology graduate programs because there are twice as many women as men? Or education? Or biology, which has more women? Why does math and engineering have to be the only area where gender representation is an issue when the gender bias there is nowhere near what it is in education or social sciences?
The head of all physics at Yale is a woman - should the men in physics there be anxious because they can never be a woman?
Hunt, K. (2010). "Study: Campaign sexism hits its mark." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42654.html - Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, routinely dismissed as only being a candidate because she is pretty.
Benjamin, J. (2010). "Women's Lacrosse: Boys' Brains are more Important than Girls'?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnny-benjamin/womens-lacrosse-boys-brai…
Steven Pinker http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html
"Finally there's a sex difference in variability. It's crucial here to look at the right samples. Estimates of variance depend highly on the tails of the distribution, which by definition contain smaller numbers of people. Since people at the tails of the distribution in many surveys are likely to be weeded out for various reasons, it's important to have large representative samples from national populations. In this regard the gold standard is the Science paper by Novell and Hedges, which reported six large stratified probability samples. They found that in 35 out of 37 tests, including all of the tests in math, space, and science, the male variance was greater than the female variance."
The article in question appears to have some mistaken statistics. It says, “In the top 100 U.S. universities, only 9% to 16% of tenure-track positions in math intensive fields are occupied by women (Nelson&Brammer, 2010).” Apparently, the article used “tenure-track” rather than “all ranks” as in Nelson and Brammer’s report (see Table 11 on page 14 here http://chem.ou.edu/~djn/diversity/faculty_Tables_FY07/FinalReport07.html). According to Nelson and Brammer, in the top 100 U.S. universities, 15.5% to 30.1% of assistant professor positions in “math intensive fields” are occupied by women.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/15tier.html
Rumors of Our Rarity are Greatly Exaggerated: Bad Statistics About Women in Science
The essay originally in this location was updated and published in the Journal of Humanistic Mathematics in July of 2011. It can be downloaded free of charge - http://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol1/iss2/
http://mathedck.wordpress.com/about-this-blogger/
http://www.science20.com/science_20/women_and_minorities_prejudiced_aga…
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/29536829.html
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/no_gender_difference_in_math_any…
Progressives deny the achievements of women in order to protect a political agenda - it is more important to undermine the advances in test scores under NCLB than to highlight that women are better at math.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_…
The "substantial resources" universities expend to sponsor gender-sensitivity training and interviewing workshops would be better spent on addressing the real causes of women's underrepresentation, Ceci and Williams say, through creative problem-solving and policy changes that respond to differing "biological and social realities" of the sexes.
Colleges are wasting money defending against persistent claims of discrimination that could instead be spent
It's not discrimination in instances of different hiring, but rather differences in resources attributable to career and family-related choices that set women back in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields, say Stephen J. Ceci, professor of developmental psychology, and Wendy M. Williams, professor of human development and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, both in Cornell's College of Human Ecology.
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/discrimination_against_men_science-…
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/us_leads_in_fair_hiring_standard…
Only about 10 percent of ads placed by U.S.-based companies contained gender discrimination, compared with 24 percent for European-based firms and 47 percent for Asian corporations, most headquartered in Japan
U.S. firms are particularly sensitive to gender bias, he says, operating under laws that have banned sex-based discrimination since the Civil Rights Act was passed nearly 50 years ago. Laws in Europe and Asia are generally not as stringent or strictly enforced, he said.
"I think it speaks well of American companies in their international operations," he said. "They can be seen as a model, and that can have an impact on host nations as they become more economically developed."
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/gender_bias_rating_high_school_s…
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/sex_discrimination_go_byebye_gen…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/proofiness_how_gender_and_pay_stati…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/there_still_gender_discrimination_s…
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/wikipedia_sexist_too-81478
http://www.science20.com/science_20/still_think_girls_cant_do_science_f…
It doesn't end at US borders. A new study in the British Journal of Educational Psychology says we may have to invent a whole new language for female scientists. Too many subjects are “embedded in masculine contexts”, the authors claim, and a female professor at UCLA says girl-ing up examples, as in changing “How does a laser read a CD?” - too masculine! - to “how is a laser used in cosmetic surgery?” addresses stereotypical girls’ concerns and motivates them, maybe, to go into science. Female professors at UCLA patronize young females more than the cast of "Mad Men", it seems.
These young women, also educated under the evil No Child Left Behind program progressives also insisted would ruin education, didn't get the memo about how oppressed they are. The three American girls beat out 10,000 students from 90 other countries - kind of a slap in the face to people who insist American education is lousy also.
If progressives want to target bias in academia, forget females. National Science Foundation (NSF) data states that fewer than 300 people with disabilities receive Ph.D.s in science or engineering each year, yet 140,000 freshmen students list a disability. And don't even try to count the number of Republicans who can get tenure at a university today. If people really care about bias, those are the two areas we should be looking.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/women_science_you_are_oppressed_eve…
females do as well as males in math for the first time in history, a terrific achievement. Women get more Ph.D.'s than men and not only are women hired for faculty positions as often as male counterparts, they are hired more.
It's a cultural advocacy issue, so junk math is allowed. They cite Sean McWhinnie, independent research consultant with Oxford Research and Policy, who laments that men and women will only reach 'parity' in 2021 for biosciences, in 2042 for chemistry, in 2060 for physics and in 2109 for civil engineering. How did he arrive at such a ridiculous number? He ignored actual current hiring statistics and simply made a linear curve of recent gender changes and predicted when those would break even if the rate stays the same. In other words, every man who retires or dies will still primarily be replaced by men even though hiring statistics show that is not what is happening at all.
