Feminists Have Sites Set on Science Depts.

The feminists can conquer all the science departments they want but they can't conquer cold hard reality. The fact of the matter is that if women want to succeed they'll have to be as smart and as willing to forget about "work/life balance" and just work, work, work.

Feminists have destroyed the education for countless boys. What do they have to show for that crime? Women advancing? No, what we see is that corporate america has discovered they can recruit the best and brightest from abroad (India, China, Eastern Europe, etc...). Corporate america no longer cares about promoting education in the USA because they can get the best and brightest from the rest of the world.

If feminists destroy the rest of academia, our best and brightest may go overseas for the best education. And they may not come back...

I think that the issue is that many departments have aging tenured professors. This is largely due to the fact that, historically, most holders of PhD's have been male. Now consider that these same professors will be retiring within the next decade or so, and thereby many positions will open.

If, by that time, the notion of collegiate sexism has been popularized, universities may feel pressured to move women into these important spots to repel criticism. That could allow for less qualified individuals to be promoted on the basis of sex; an affirmative action for women, it would seem.***

If this is a political tactic, it seems that action must be taken soon to prevent promotions from occurring for reasons other than education level, experience, teaching abilities, or other such reasonable considerations.

A somewhat specific example of the effect this may have is in the biological sciences. Many students are drawn to this broad category, often for its lax mathematical requirements. Of the many natural sciences, women are most often seen here; 60-70% of the students are female, if I recall correctly. With controversial issues such as the role of sex in determining the average natural aptitude for a specified group (e.g. spatial ability, linguistic ability), a politicized promotion scheme could influence thinking there for decades to come.

***This is meant purely as an example, drawn from a popular representation of affirmative action. Please, let's ignore that tangential discussion, at least for now.

It never ceases to amaze me the bull shit research fem-nags come up with as they incessantly argue (usually citing each other’s crap) that sex differences are purely the result of socialization. Even when they do acknowledge inherent differences exist, they find the lowest D factors to cite from bogus studies and minimize their impact. Even moderate differences, when played out over time, are significant. Casinos only have a slight edge over betters (see link at bottom); but who gets to keep the lion’s share of the money? And they wonder why they fail so miserably in the hard sciences; they can’t even adhere to scientific methods in their arguments for more female scientists! Credible experiments clearly show sex differences (males have better spatial ability and females have better verbal skills for example) manifest themselves long before socialization has had an opportunity to play a part. The below article cites numerous studies that clearly show the heritability of sex differences:

Sex Differences Article

Casino Odds

P.S. If you happen to be a faculty member at a university, you had better not mention the heritability of sex differences; it could cost you your job. Just ask Larry Summers!

Based on the article, feminists and their cohorts are now, it appears, starting to take advantage of the false notion of a "shortage" of people in technology fields and in university curricula in this area. In order to elaborate on this point, I am briefly shifting the subject in what follows:

Most of you guys probably aren't aware of this, but there has never been, over the last 25-30 years at least, a "shortage" of scientists, engineers or computer programmers (either students or workers). Instead there is massive age discrimination in the field, and the real pool they are not taking advantage of, is older, experienced workers. The industry makes it sound like it is an issue of older guys not knowing the new technologies, but that is merely a pretext for not hiring older workers. Any experienced guy can learn the new technologies on the job.
There is no "brain drain" on this country either. In fact, there is good evidence of an OVER-supply of graduate students in science and engineering curricula in the U.S. And speaking of the National Science Foundation, a few years ago they were involved in a conspiracy to keep U.S. engineering wages down.
If you don't believe me about any of this, check out professor Norman Matloff's web site (He is at UC Davis).
Also I have education and work history in these areas, so I speak partly from experience and observation.

So now there will be even more of a surplus of workers in this field--due to woman moving in--and both the industry (companies) and feminists will benefit! Talk about killing two shitbirds with one stone!!

-Axolotl

"The 18-member panel had only one man: Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley. But Dr. Shalala noted that the National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the report had 10 men."

how much feminist influence did this panel have with only one man represented? ( i suspect Birgeneau was chosen because he is a supporter of feminism)..ie: castrated man slave

ten men viewing the report is irrelevant. having only one "token" man suggests the entire report was infected with feminist proaganda.

“Many of us spend more energy enforcing the law on our sports teams than we have in have in our academic halls”

the same feminist's who constructed this report are the same women "bitching" about title ix dollars. making sure the female yoga club gets it share of funding at the expense of the college wrestling team.

anthony

people are too concerned with this male/female thing.
an ass is an ass, be it female or male(I mean proverbial, IRL, male ass is so much better)
Anyway, I feel that men and women spend too much time in competition for each other.
Oh, BTW, my friend forced me to see his Bootleg of Hard Candy, and I liked it. Not because it was about a man getting tortured, but because it was a good psychological thriller. I like those-- Psychological Thrillers, I mean. Hostel, however, there is no excuse for.

It doesn't take much research to discover that the administrations of K-12, Community Colleges, and increasingly "higher" educational institutions (colleges and universities) are dominated by women.

Just Google your local community college and look at the administrative directory. It will be 80% female.

Colleges? Maybe 55%.

Universities? Same legislated progression.

Kindergarten teachers are 99.9% female.

K-12 = 85% women.

Boys are now growing up in a seamless matriarchy.

It's like growing up in a socially controlled lab experiment where the only "perfect color" is lavendar.

Most boys never experience a male teacher or "hero" ever in their formal K-12 schooling.

Men today are basically like fish who want to understand how to live in the air above the sea.

They can't even grasp their slavery.

In my computer science faculty, there are lots of men who are brilliant at programming but obviously seriously dyslexic, while women have more balanced abilities. I'm sure studies would support this is investigating it wasn't such a taboo. I think I'll ask these people a few questions.

Fact is, you can't beat these people that we call "insular skilled" here at the special abilities they have. And there are just more men who are like that.

As an experienced computer programmer, as well as someone who has know people who suffered from dyslexia, I can tell you guys out there with absolute certainty: "Dyslexic programmer" is an oxymoron.
A programmer must be able to quickly read and write lines of "code" - usually a system of complex symbolic information typed in at a computer terminal or on a P.C./workstation. A programmer who is significantly dyslexic would fail miserably on the job, withing the first couple of weeks.

-Axolotl

I have a friend who is a programmer, and has been diagnosed with dyslexia. It runs in his family. The guy hates to read, espically documentation, but he is a compitent programmer. From what he's explained to me, he can read code just fine, but reading sentances causes him great difficulty. I don't pretend to understand how it works, but for him it does.

--Demonspawn

..and of course I know outstanding programmers who are dyslexic. You as an experienced programmer should know the fundamental difference between an irregular natural language and an LL(k)-grammar programming language with a very limited number of unambiguous and fairly simple keywords that can be memorized like numbers if necessary.
The latter never tests your feeling for languages, only your logic abilities, plus there is syntax highlighting. "Complex symbolic information" is in the domain of logic and has nothing to do with the problem.
It's more evident in German because its rules are complex enough that you really need to have it all in your guts or you will tediously have to apply a huge set of rules all the time, which is what these people have to do.

I actually had one professor who is brilliant in logic but whenever he didn't run his spell checker on a quickly written text, made so silly looking mistakes, people in the lecture occasionally snickered. I remember countless examples of professors and other students proving time after time that male people in my faculty have an extremely low standard regarding language. It's not uncommon to see blatant mistakes even in excerpts of a master's thesis blown up to poster size on the wall of a hallway. Documents and web pages of the University itself are error free - they're obviously not written by tech people.

It's just the same at work and with computer departments everywhere. But to my knowledge, the matter has never been investigated. Anyhow, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that anything I wrote about is "impossible".

FTA:

“Unless a deeper talent pool is tapped, it will be difficult for our country to maintain our competitiveness in science and engineering."

Because, naturally, as inferior beings, men aren't capable of this on their own.

There's something I've never been able to understand. It's quite clear that women trying to get into academic positions are either doing it, or aren't and don't care. If they weren't getting on basis of their being women, it would be EVERYWHERE. Did it ever occur to anybody that maybe the majority of women simply aren't interested?

Maybe, rather than focusing on gender, people should be focusing on academic ability to "maintain our competitiveness in science and engineering."

I find it ironic that women studies is so full of junk science, yet this report makes no effort to address that deficiency.

When I said complex symbolic information, I mean it is one thing for a lay person to read this sentence, but another for him to read:

for(ptr=&i;ptr=0x2FA9;ptr--)printf(line[*ptr], "%d\n");

That would be gibberish to the average person; and I can see where a dyslexic person might "switch" one symbol with another unknowingly.

Well I stand corrected..if you know a person who is dyslexic and a programmer..I hope they are not writing Lisp code for space shuttle robotic arm programs (maybe Visual Basic for a grocery store application is okay)!

(I gave the "0" rating because I thought it was a troll. Is it?) No offense intended Daemonspawn, I know YOU are not a troll.

-Axolotl