men too good for women - It's a dsicrimination!

I’ve been emphasizing that the real motive for feminists’ so-called quest for gender equality has nothing to do with gender equality but simply a carefully disguised attack on males.

This article, also found on insidehighered.com, which I have been enjoying reading for the last few days, maybe one of a spinoffs from Linda Hirshmann’s article that provoked quite a controversy some time ago.

Anyway, excerpt from the article;

“why not simply require faculty fathers to produce half again as much (teaching, scholarship, whatever) at each step of the way that the faculty mothers do, rather than lowering the requirements for the women? Demanding of these pampered fellas that they work as hard, over all, as their female counterparts do would add a salutary dash of reality to their perceived superiority to women in the workplace, level the playing field and create some job opportunities for ambitious women who want to do a little extra. A modest proposal.”

So Linda openly advocates and thinks it “A modest proposal” to restrict men to produce half as much academic work as women do, to compensate for the fact that women cannot produce as much as men.

It is interesting. Employ any means necessary to achieve gender parity on paper. If women is lagging behind, first, give them a few extra hand. If women are still behind, keep men from going so far ahead so that women can catch up and, alas, men and women are the same and therefore equality achieved!

I think the feminists have come to grudging realization (though they never would admit to it) that men are simply superior and more productive in academic field and their s no way or women to trully catch up with them, and thus their focus has shifted from how to empower and give a few extra points for being a woman, to how to restrict or control men’s uncontrollably superior ability compared to women.

Thus feminists’ new gender-equality mantra is defined.

1. Men are too good for women to catch up – it’s a gender discrimination!
2. How we could restrict men’s ability so that women could catch up?

I think this could be called “negative equality” - an attempt to control everyone’s ability or outputs so that everyone’s outputs are equal and no one fall behind, as opposed to “positive equality”, where all people can exercise their full potential on a level playing field.

After decades of pursuing gender equality on the assumption on the latter positive equality, when feminists believed that men and women’s potential are the same, they have finally saw the reality, that it is not. But they haven’t given up the ‘gender-equality” game, or “gender-sameness” game, and I'll bet those militant feminists soon will be hell-bent on restricting men’s ability.

Insidehighered. No. 3

Insidehighered.com, hillarious article serios No. 3

Simple question; “overt discrimination was disappearing — but that its disappearance didn’t necessarily translate into women rising to the top ranks at the college or in departments.” – why the disappearance of (overt) discrimination automatically needs to result in more women at top ranks? Disappearance of discrimination only, if any, ensure that so-called playing field is leveled, but doesn’t guarantee promotion of people who were previously said to have been affected by the said discrimination. To gain promotion, you strive for it. You work for it. But it won’t be sent to your doorstep in a gift wrap or handed out to you by government or institution (actually it will in our current political climate)

“Three sociologists at the University of Arizona presented a paper on the impact of specialization on the academic careers of men and women.” What are those sociologists main research field? Maybe gender discrimination in their own university. It seems that the university hired ‘diversity officer” or “gender ration enforcement officer” when it really should be hiring sociologists. If the hiring committee of the university were less obsessed with meeting diversity goal or under less pressure to correct gender imbalance in its faculty makeup, they would have had hired ‘the best qualified candidate”, maybe male sociologists, who would be doing some real “sociological” study instead of pursuing narrow agenda that would only benefit their own chance of promotion. But I guess it really doesn’t matter; who cares whether sociologists were concerned about social phenomena that affects the society at large, or their interest is limited to advancing their own agenda (and their position) in faculty.

Another excerpt from the article; “The study found, for example, that departments routinely had smaller shares of women than could be found among younger members of their disciplines.” -Why the gender ratio (women professors) needs to mirror exactly the wider body (women’s ratio of Ph. Ds). It is obvious that the Title XI mentality is at play here. Whatever positions (usually women playing in college varsity teams in the Title XI world but in this case women professors) that feminists deem desirable or enhance women’s standing in feminists’ worldview (leadership role or non-traditional roles for women), at least needs to match the gender ratio of a wider body that happens to be in women’s advantage. Even if the logical connection between the two is hazy or difficult to establish definitively, (feminists could circumvent this by castigating the questioner male chauvinistic pig) it doesn’t matter, if the two gender ratio don’t match, it automatically becomes a ground for launching allegations of gender discrimination.

Insidehighered.com No. 2 Productivity disproportionately affects women

hillarious article No. 2 on insidehighered.com.

Note that as time goes by, feminists’ allegation of gender discrimination is getting more and more specific. Before it was a discrimination against women in higher education. Period. Now it is, in “higher learning institution”, in the field of “academic medicine”, women suffers disproportionately by the “raising expectation” and they “get “consistently fewer” competing renewals grants than men” and “for every dollar a male primary investigator receives, women get 80 cents”. (in the last one they even succeeded in throwing some elements of “gender pay gap” trick.)

It may be true that men get promoted faster in academic medicine field and that men churn out more academic papers and work more productively, but the reason for that maybe is not because of the gender discrimination (when did the latter become evidence of discrimination by the way?) but because since simply men are better in general, and that superiority manifests itself in every aspects of academic career and life. You can keep on discovering almost infinite number of areas where “women are disproportionately affected” or in other words, “women are not as good as men’ in this or that area. Maybe men on average write better papers, better quality of research, better reviews, better at finding and collaborating with other researchers, better at finding opportunities to present their researches, better speech and presentation skills at conference., etc. etc., the list can go on and on. And my guess is that all of this, according to feminists, could be elements that can “disproportionately affect women.” Maybe men are better at more basic academic skills, such as writing composition, researching online, use of computer, use of library and lab, and these of course, would “disproportionately affect women”. Women, isn’t it time to simply admit the obvious?

I am still amazed that the author cites among the “bars” of rising expectation, “number of publications, numbers of collaborators and of graduate students and postdocs, invitations to speak and to present at national and international conferences”. In most people’s view, these would easily viewed as objective evaluation criteria on one’s productivity and excellence. In other words, productivity or excellence disproportionately affects women. I am very sorry.

Insidehighered.com

I found an interesting website where very high-educated women to gather to spew their misguided hatred against men and society. It is "insdeihighered.com. Actually if you want to go to a site of this sort, you can simply go to the website of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) or the National Organization for Women (NOW) if you prefer more general topic not necessarily specialized on issues rlated to higher institutions.

Anyway, below are some hillarious excerpts from this website;


From march 28 article;

“We found that women weren’t getting information about things as simple as timelines to becoming full professors. They didn’t know how to start the process.”

Women Ph.D don't even know those things? Or they don't even have a slightest motivation to research that on their own? How did they get Ph.D in the first place? Surely it would be very very hard to find, recruit, retain and promote such women. That's why feminist machinery has to be in a fll throttle to get more women in the profession to raise the gender balance. I feel sympathy for the author. My guess is that those women are too used to being treated like a pampered baby, as their big feminist sisters took care of them in all aspects of their academic career - from choosing the field in the first place, pursuing it, exam prep, recruitment, etc. Now their promotion will be taken care by their big sisters.

Another way to react to above quote is; uhh, do these women know how to write cover letters? uhhh, do they know how to use computer?