Wages

Instructor Tells Student She Must 'Look at Feminist Sources,' Shouldn't Debunk the Wage Gap

"The reality is patriarchy."

|

Ryerson
Christoph Martin

A sociology instructor at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, barred a student from writing about the myth of the wage gap between male and female workers.

The instructor told the student, Jane Matthias, that the wage gap is "very real"—even though it isn't—and she should only consult "feminist sources" on the subject.

"Do NOT use business sources," the instructor wrote in an email to Matthias. "They blame women. The reality is patriarchy."

For the class's final paper, Matthias is required to write about a sociological issue. Her twin sister—Youtube personality Josephine Matthias, an anti-political correctness liberal—suggested she write about the purported wage gap, and why it's misleading.

But the instructor rejected this topic in an email to Jane.

"Your premise is wrong," she wrote. "The way the wage gap works is largely through the glass ceiling."

The glass ceiling—the idea that women and minorities are systematically denied high-level positions at companies—is an entirely different subject, of course. It may even have some validity. But its existence does not prove that the wage gap is really a thing. They are different phenomena.

As for the wage gap, Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown reviewed last year's most up-to-date data and found:

… when you consider men and women performing substantially similar jobs—i.e., situations in which the sexes are actually doing "equal work"—the wage gap shrinks significantly. A new examination of wage data from 33 countries around the world found that for men and women in the same position, men made just 1.6 percent more on average.

Of course, whether or not the wage gap exists isn't really the point here. The point is that a university instructor disallowed any dissent on the subject.

Would it have been appropriate for the instructor to ask Jane to grapple with feminist sources that present a contrary argument? Of course. Demonstrating that she understands these arguments—and why they are mistaken—would be an important component of a successful paper.

But the instructor told Jane to ignore any information that might contradict the instructor's own leftist-feminist position. According to the Toronto Sun, the instructor prohibited students from consulting newspaper articles, encyclopedias, or government-compiled statistics—even though such statistics are incredibly reliable.

"Statistics themselves are devoid of analysis," the instructor wrote in an email. "Simply stating a statistic does not explain or explore any critical sociological analysis."

Ideally, though, the point of a university education is to equip students with the tools necessary for them to make sense of data and statistics on their own. This instructor does not seem interested in that project. In fact, she seems interested in just one thing: forcing her students to produce perfunctory papers copied from leftwing sociological sources—sources in conflict with reality.

Students should feel free to study a variety of perspectives in their classes. They should not be forced to write from a single perspective, especially when that perspective is flatly wrong about the phenomena it seeks to describe.

The instructor did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Uh oh. The cracks in the lefty narrative are becoming the more serious leaks. Maybe someday the flood.

  2. “Statistics themselves are devoid of analysis,” the instructor wrote in an email.

    I just don’t even know where to begin here.

    1. Math is hard.

      1. and thinking is apparently even harder.

    2. Maybe the student should write a paper where she examines the statis….oh, I see the problem.

  3. The instructor cannot reply to requests for comment without leding legitimacy to Teh Patriarchy, which is handy because she obviously hasn’t the brains to engage in actual debate.

    1. Men invented the internet, so asking women to respond to e-mails is literal rape.

      1. But cuckolding is totes ok, right?

  4. Our healthcare system is sexist, too. Men die earlier than women. Sexism, clearly, because taking a median and then comparing it to another median, without controlling for any variables, is ‘science’!

    1. I should have said *cisgender* males in comparison to *cisgender* females. I apologize for the microagression

      1. Apology not accepted, you evil cis-hetero shitlord!

        1. Check your privilege! Your speech is literally violence

          1. (Hangs head in shame)

      2. Fuckin cissy.

      3. I tuned out at CIS anything.

  5. The glass ceiling?the idea that women and minorities are systematically denied high-level positions at companies?is an entirely different subject, of course. It may even have some validity.

    You’re getting better at hiding it Robby. I’m gonna put $50 on this line being the one people choose to bitch about.

    1. *raises hand*

      Yes, because it’s just as BS as the “wage gap”.

    2. I have seen surveys and studies demonstrating that women, quite reasonably, once they are married, will turn down positions with too much travel or too much responsibility. Yes, I am sure there are some dickheads somewhere that won’t promote women, but that is not where most of the glass ceiling comes from–it comes from women making rational choices in favor of their families.

      1. But you also can’t argue that women should be primary care givers for children because that’s patriarchal even though you also can’t argue that women are naturally the best at giving the care. However, in the next breath you are told that uncaring males should be as far from children as possible and should also work for less just to be fair.

        Where’s Nicky? I need her back to womansplain.

        1. but those guys should also be granted paternity leave to be home with their infant progeny, too!

          Hmmm… nah, no oxymoronic crap there, right?

    3. I have seen surveys and studies demonstrating that women, quite reasonably, once they are married, will turn down positions with too much travel or too much responsibility. Yes, I am sure there are some dickheads somewhere that won’t promote women, but that is not where most of the glass ceiling comes from–it comes from women making rational choices in favor of their families.

  6. Jesus Christ.

    How in the fuck did someone so superficially shallow in their intellectualism end up a professor in a fricken university?

    Does not reflect well on Ryerson….at all.

    What happens when the ‘statistics’ from such sources confirm the professor’s position? All of a sudden they’re allowed to be sourced?

    Progressive SJW’s are out of their cotton pickin’ minds.

    1. Ned Ryerson? Needle-Nose Ned? Ned the Head?

      1. BING!

      2. Well, I have nothing to say now.

        1. And thank God for that.

          1. You will again in the morning.

      3. Got the shingles real bad senior year and almost didn’t graduate.

        I now see the professor’s problem.

    2. How in the fuck did someone so superficially shallow in their intellectualism end up a professor in a fricken university?

      They work in universities because no one else will hire them. Not even Burger King. Not even the TSA. University is their only option for a simulacrum of gainful employment.

      1. Stay in grad school for long enough, and eventually they get used to having you around.

    3. How in the fuck did someone so superficially shallow in their intellectualism end up a professor in a fricken university?

      I’m outing myself as a nerd;

      A sociology instructor at Ryerson University

      (emph. added).

      Brandybuck’s right. This person considers themselves to be too differently-abled to work at BK or for the TSA… and they’re right.

    4. For a university called Ryserson…

    5. First of all, Ryerson’s not a university–it’s a glorified technical college. Second, this person isn’t a ‘Professor’. Not that any of this excuses this kind of behavior. Just putting it in perspective.

  7. “Simply stating a statistic does not explain or explore any critical sociological analysis.”

    Maybe not, but a statistic empirically refutes a sociological view based on things that are not so. Those damn numbers have a habit of getting in the way. And it’s a bit condescending to assume that a student is simply going to put some figures on paper with no further explanation/context/exploration, and believe that makes a paper.

    1. “Women make 77% of what men do for the same job!” = A+!!!

  8. LOL, this from people who insist that they’re Intellectually Superior Beings.

  9. The instructor did not respond to a request for comment.

    To be sure, that’s because you are the pluperfect example of an alt-right patriarch of the oppressive owning class. With hair.

  10. At this juncture, all professors in women studies departments should just be put on the Trump re-election campaign payroll.

  11. Only use feminist sources

    Stop believing in Jewish science

    This instructor is following the grand leftist and fascist tradition of believing that the source of information is dispositive over its validity. Gerbles and Lesenko would be proud. And the best part is the woman is so stupid and has so thoroughly absorbed these ideas that she doesn’t even realize she has.

    1. I agree with you completely, but:

      Gerbles

      1. Richard Gere hardest hit.

        1. “Gerbles Gnaw my Butt!”

    2. Did you mean Gerbils?

    3. John confirmed Russian Fake Newsman.

      Goebbels. Lysenko.

      Good god man.

      1. You know who I meant. If all you have to add is five seconds of googling to confirm a spelling of a foreign name, well I guess that is something. Not something I find interesting or worthwhile, but it is something.

        1. Splellling is a tool of teh patreearky, eh John?

          1. Everyone loves the John-o’s. He usually has a great point.

        2. Come on, John, have a sense of humor. Laugh at yourself. You spelled “Goebbels” semi-phonetically, and that is objectively funny.

          1. Would the Nazis have had as much success if his name had been spelled Gerbils and if not, might that be due to anti-rodent bias? Discuss

          2. But, but … Goebbles starts with a hard G, not a soft one. Nazis can’t be soft.

            1. And Lysenko starts like liss, not less phonetically …

        3. The biscuit is NOT taking the five seconds. How do we know you aren’t a double agent, John? Or should I say, Ivan?

  12. “Ideally, though, the point of a university education is to equip students with the tools necessary for them to make sense of data and statistics on their own.”

    Ideal, indeed.

    Universities have for so long pushed their social agenda that “facts” no longer matter, if said facts conflict with their sense of “truth” they are to be soundly rejected as being “patriarchy” or some such nonsense.

    1. It’s that Scandinavian Post-Modernism, I’ll tell ya!

      The South Africans that were part of the Frankfurt School! Asian Critical Theorists!

      Missing:Jewish

    2. Ideally for you maybe, but not for progressives.
      The point of a university education (particularly in Canada) is to generate more progressives.

  13. “The reality is patriarchy.”

    The reality is that these people are dangerously delusional.

  14. It’s just plain hilarious that the only thing students of this professor will know how to do after taking her class is “copy and paste”. I wonder how much they pay for this valuable knowledge.

    1. If you are a Canadian, only $11,000 a year according to the net. Still too much but better than the $50,000 American students are no doubt paying for the same sort of crap.

  15. Of course, whether or not the wage gap exists isn’t really the point here. The point is that a university instructor disallowed any dissent on the subject.

    No, no, no. The instructor was teaching a very important lesson about how to identify and avoid alternative facts [anything that makes me feel bad, look like a liar, or challenges my positions]. Surely these future New Soviet World Leaders appreciate the value of such lessons.

  16. The instructor did not respond to a request for comment.

    quelle surprise

  17. “Statistics themselves are devoid of analysis,” the instructor wrote in an email. “Simply stating a statistic does not explain or explore any critical sociological analysis.” In addition to be blinded by political correctness, the instructor is apparently devoid of a sense of humor, lest she would have simply quoted Twain about statistics (“Lie, damned lies, and statistics”).

    1. Let’s distill: sociological analysis is worthless.

      With age I’ve become more Feynmanian re “social sciences” – they’re full of pseudoscience bilge. My field, economics, is bad enough, but sociology is the worst of the cargo cults. And it’s getting to the point that even making empty gestures at imitating science is an obstacle to the credentialed power games – sociology, women’s studies, etc. are going directly to mystical confessions of faith.

      1. So what are you saying? We shouldn’t even try to understand human societies and how they function?

        Social sciences certainly aren’t hard science in the same way that physics or chemistry are, but I don’t think that makes them worthless. The dominance of leftist thinking in the social sciences is a problem, but that’s no reason to give up on them completely as fields of study.

        1. We should stop calling the social “science” and go back to calling the social “studies”. They make no specific reproducible, measurable, falsifiable predictions (not projections). Once they have the mantle of science removed from their shoulders, they can be ignored when they produce drivel like this.

          1. That seems reasonable. wef was making a much stronger claim.

      2. It’s all the trying to describe things in equations that can’t be described in equations. There seems to be this idea that if you can come up with an equation, using enough variables for it to fit existing data, the equation therefore becomes the truth and the subject magically becomes a science.

  18. How is the wage gap a myth? From the article:

    “? when you consider men and women performing substantially similar jobs?”

    Why so consider? Men and women do substantially different jobs. Why pretend otherwise? The person whose job is to wipe snot off the faces of pre-schoolers is likely to be a women. The person on the phone in the Italian suit making deals is probably a man. Men and women are substantially different in their physical anatomy and psychological make-up. The kinds of work they do is also different.

    1. So, you’re saying it’s irrelevant rather than made up?

      1. Irrelevant? Have you spoken to any feminists or lesbians lately? This is a big issue with such folk. It’s because of their interest in the issue that you find yourself discussing it today.

        1. Irrelevant?

          Yep, that’s what I typed.

          Have you spoken to any feminists or lesbians lately?

          I don’t know, I don’t do identity checks before I talk to people.

          such folk

          Duuuuuuude! That is not OK.

    2. Let me apply their logic — the reason women are more likely to be pre-school teachers is because men are discriminated against in hiring for that occupation.

      1. Men and women are different. They have different bodies and the kinds of work they prefer to do are different, as well. Hard for you to accept but that’s the truth of it.

        1. It is true. It’s also the main reason why the “wage gap”, as usually presented, is a myth.

        2. If men and women are different, then why does it matter that there are man jobs and woman jobs? If women are predisposed to be teachers, for example, are you saying that they should be paid as much as doctors, again for example? Should job salary really be determined by gender than by skill set?

          1. “why does it matter that there are man jobs and woman jobs? ”

            Because man jobs pay better than lady jobs. It’s not a myth.

            1. So pay should be based on gender and not on skills. You should have just said this at the beginning rather than beating around the bush about it.

              1. “So pay should be based on gender and not on skills. ”

                I haven’t said that. I’ve said repeatedly, contrary to the assertion here in the first sentence, that the wage gap between men and women is not a myth. Is that clear enough for you?

                1. Did you read past the first sentence? If so, I’m not sure why you are continuing to argue about this.

                  1. “Did you read past the first sentence? ”

                    I skimmed it. Was the rest of it as mendacious as the first sentence?

      2. They might be, but not many men are interested in that line of work or apply for that job, but you’ll find that the ones that do and the ones that get hired tend to be gay. It breaks down to something like 90% women, 9% gay men, and 1% straight men. What the reasons are, I don’t know.

      1. I miss Pirate Truther.

    3. Because the claim is generally that women get 77 cents per dollar for the same work. And that this is due to sexism.

      1. “Because the claim is generally that women get 77 cents per dollar for the same work. ”

        I think you’ve got this wrong. It’s precisely when you ‘consider men and women performing substantially the same work’ that this gap tends to disappear. It’s only evident when you consider men and women as a whole.

        1. Then you agree with most people here. People aren’t saying that an overall wage disparity doesn’t exist. They are saying that it isn’t a problem that needs to be solved because it has to do with the choices individuals make and not the sexism of employers.

          1. “They are saying that it isn’t a problem that needs to be solved because it has to do with the choices individuals make and not the sexism of employers.”

            But feminists and lesbians do see it as a problem that is arises out of market forces. That’s why they are anti-capitalist and anti-market. They question the market’s decision to reward an hour’s work by the Italian suited wheeler dealer with incomprehensibly larger rewards than an hour of highly skilled snot wiping. In a word, they are not Libertarians.

            1. Well, I don’t know what to do with those people. You can’t sustainably pay people more than the value that their work produces. Taking care of young children may be important and difficult in some ways, but pretty much anyone can do it, so it doesn’t command a big salary.

              1. “Well, I don’t know what to do with those people. ”

                Try telling them that it’s an invisible hand that determines their wages and it must not be questioned. It seems to work for most of the men here.

    4. Why would you expect people doing different jobs to get paid the same amount? No one denies that there isn’t, on average across the whole population a difference in wages paid to men and women. The part that is false is that men and women get paid differently for doing the same job.

      If you could really pay women .71 on the dollar, or whatever it’s supposed to be, you would see a lot more companies recruiting only women. Unless you think that corporate culture is so committed to sexism that they will leave all that money on the table.

      1. “No one denies that there isn’t, on average across the whole population a difference in wages paid to men and women. ”

        The author of this piece says the gap is a myth. In the very first sentence.

        1. And then it goes on to explain in what sense it is a myth.

          1. Where? I missed the explanation.

            1. As for the wage gap, Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown reviewed last year’s most up-to-date data and found:

              ? when you consider men and women performing substantially similar jobs?i.e., situations in which the sexes are actually doing “equal work”?the wage gap shrinks significantly. A new examination of wage data from 33 countries around the world found that for men and women in the same position, men made just 1.6 percent more on average.

              1. But men and women don’t do equal work, they do different work, and the work women do is typically paid less than that of work done by men. I don’t see how that’s a myth.

                1. No two individuals do exactly the same work. You are being silly now. There are plenty of areas where men and women do comparable work in comparable jobs and you can compare compensation in such situations and there is no significant difference in how men and women are paid.

                  1. “No two individuals do exactly the same work. ”

                    The article spoke of equal work. The same words I used.

                    “you can compare compensation in such situations and there is no significant difference in how men and women are paid.”

                    Actually, the article states different. There is almost a 2% difference is wages of men and women doing similar work. In favour of men, you’ll be shocked to learn. When all men are stacked up against all women, the disparity is much much greater.

      2. this is actually why ethnic women other than whites are often now bread winners but only by government mandate. if a company hires a person of ethnicity other than white they get a point towards government contracts if they hire a woman they get another point so if they hire a woman of ethnicity you get two points so why hire men of any ethnicity there is no gains.

        note I make note of “ethnicity other than whites” because in many areas whites are now an ethnic minority and ethnicity is a PC way of not singling out people of color but it is oaky of course when they are white.

        1. I appreciate your use of the term ‘ethnicity.’ And you’ve added a much needed dimension of race-pimping to this fascinating discussion.

    5. When they’re talking about actual substantially similar jobs where the “gap” practically disappears, they meant the same field, the same hours, the same education, the same level of experience, etc. Not the progressive attempt at saying, for example, that a day care worker should be paid the same as a truck driver.

  19. How is this not a religion / cult? Science and evidence be damned, literally, because it goes against their articles of faith.

    They’ve basically become to religious right of the 80s and 90s

  20. Like Jackie/Jacqueline Coakley, the rape-hoax drama queen of UVA, this dimwit sociology instructor has a real name: Kelly Amanda Train. Why not use it? The virtuous, white-knighting pose in this case is difficult to explain.

    1. Well that certainly came out of left field.

      1. To dilate a bit:

        “The instructor told the student, Jane Matthias….”

        We know the student’s name. Why not the instructor’s? The instructor – a supposedly mature adult and privileged PhD – has the power. Her name is easily found. Why hide it?

        1. Do we have to care that she has a name? Honestly? Are you angry that you couldn’t find something else to quibble about so you made it about the instructors name? Was her offense so horrendous that everyone must know her shame?

          1. Finger-wagging and quibbling over my quibble?

            But to put your mind at ease, the comment was about virtuous Robbie’s tendency – impishly – to white-knight for SJW poseurs – his gleeful persistence in protecting the fraud Coakley became a way to troll those incensed by the injustice of how the UVA scam unfolded.

            In this case, the name of the instructor, Kelly Train, is used by other news outlets reporting on this bit of power-abuse by university cranks. A quick google shows that she is named prominently in the Ryersonian, for gawd’s sake, the news outlet of the university’s very own journalism school. Her name’s absence here in this post, especially while naming the student, is noteworthy.

            As for her shame, I severely doubt that instructor Train has any sense of it, whatsoever.

            1. the comment was about virtuous Robbie’s tendency – impishly – to white-knight for SJW poseurs – his gleeful persistence in protecting the fraud Coakley became a way to troll those incensed by the injustice of how the UVA scam unfolded

              Yes, I know. Every Robby article must come with a built-in reason to hate Robby. Clearly he’s a not-so-deep-cover SJW in our midst.

    2. Dude, it’s a blog post based on the Toronto Sun article, not a piece of investigative journalism. He doesn’t name the instructor because the article doesn’t. And I suspect that’s because it’s Canadian and they have stricter libel laws. Maybe it’s lazy, but that’s it.

      1. The instructor’s name, Kelly Train, was given in the university’s own student newspaper of two days ago. See https://ryersonian.ca/ “sociology instructor allegedly slams student for rejecting the concept of a gender wage gap” by Abigail Murta. The absence of the instructor’s name, while yet mentioning the student’s name, in the Toronto Sun is a “dog that didn’t bark,” which a curious reader would note. A quick google would have revealed the name instantly. And libel laws have nothing to do with this. Anyway, why protect the reputations of these pseudoscience cranks?

        1. Good think you have some kind of magical ability to divine people’s true motivations. Couldn’t possibly be another reason for it besides “white knighting” for SJW teachers.

          Do you understand what a blog is and why a blog post might simply be a regurgitation of an article or two published elsewhere?

  21. Is this why women instructors get paid less?

    1. Do you have comparative data for male and female instructors teaching the same (not a made up equivalence) subject with the same level of experience and working the same hours?

  22. Par for the course. My son had a paper marked down because the professor didn’t agree with something “conservative” he had in it. The guy actually told him that’s why he marked the paper down, said it wasn’t “realistic.” I didn’t ask my son what it was, but it was probably something awful like how free markets tend to be self regulating.

    1. 13 yrs ago in my first fall semester at college, I had a teacher literally tell me he was not going to be objective (so only write what he wants to hear), and that “it’s okay to be a republican, but it’s hot in hell”

      1. So you dropped the class?

        1. My 2 history teachers were my only non-A’s that year, both were whackjob leftists who only taught off of howard zinn

  23. Some feminists have a different way of knowing. Things like facts and statistics and reason and logic are how the patriarchy gets you, by claiming facts trump feelings when some feminists feel intuitively that feelings outweigh facts. What they feel to be true is true and what they feel to be true is that what they feel to be true is true. How can you argue with the tautological premise when argument itself is rejected as a basis for arriving at the truth? If you feel like a woman, you’re a woman and no fact-based arguments involving biology can change the truth of that.

    If the student were smarter, she’d turn in a journal of womyn’s poetry or some such crap and claim it’s her expression of a doctoral thesis and how dare anybody question her feelings as to the validity of it?

  24. “For the class’s final paper, Matthias is required to write about a sociological issue.”
    How about the bias in education?

    1. The instructor would give her an A+, but the patriarchy only allows females to get as high as B+.

      1. Not in my experience … of course most of my courses were math and hard science where something either is or isn’t and feelings are of no value whatsoever.

  25. “Statistics themselves are devoid of analysis,” the instructor wrote in an email. “Simply stating a statistic does not explain or explore any critical sociological analysis.”

    Curious how this instructor determined there was a wage gap in first place to highlight problem…

  26. Well once you start denying deniers on one subject you may as well deny deniers on all subjects. So who is the Denier now. can they hear me now or they will deny their deafness

  27. I’m surprised this student got off with only a warning. Personally I think a deliberately aggressive act such as questioning the wage gap deserves a more severe punishment. Perhaps a friendly little visit from the Bias Response Team is in order here.

  28. The instructor might have a point if he is merely saying that an empirical analysis of a purported wage gap does not fulfill the requirement to write about sociological issue per se. An analysis comparing the use of batting averages vs. on-base percentages for evaluating baseball players would not be a sociological study of baseball.

  29. Research Interests:

    Race and Ethnicity; Diaspora; Immigration and Nation-Building; Jews; Whiteness; Feminism and Gender; Families in Canada

    Damn it, some poor grad student is having to report back to the parents at Thanksgiving that she’s a “Whiteness Researcher” for Dr. Train.

  30. It is a big mistake of leftists to think that their narrative is truth in the same sense that gravity is truth. Yet they do. Every sociological belief is (should be) open to debate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.