MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Are STEM Syllabi Gendered?' A Feminist Professor Says Women Can't Do Science

Concepts like objective truth and the scientific method are inherently sexist, study says.

STEMMonkey Business Images / DreamstimeRemember that University of Oregon study about how historical depictions of glaciers have somehow undermined the cause of feminism? This one might actually be more absurd.

The syllabi for college-level STEM courses—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—are "gendered" because they promote the idea that knowledge can be ascertained through reason. This is a masculine concept that hurts women's feelings and makes it difficult for them to succeed.

That's according to "Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis" of the STEM syllabi at one Midwestern university. The discourse was authored by the University of North Dakota's Laura Parson, and published in The Qualitative Report earlier this year.

It presupposes that certain stylistic choices—command words like "will" and "must"—are inherently masculine and anti-woman, and then sets out to determine whether these words show up in STEM syllabi. Since a syllabus is not a negotiation, but rather, a set of instructions about how to succeed in a given class, they do indeed contain lots of commands.

According to Parson, such language reinforces "a competitive, difficult, chilly climate." This climate "marginalizes women." Why? Because they're delicate snowflakes who couldn't possibly handle a little competition and difficulty—implicitly, that's what Parson is saying.

Who's the feminist, again?

But it's not just competition that marginalizes women in the classroom: the process of acquiring knowledge—the scientific method—is "inherently discriminatory to women and minorities," according to the study.

Here's one passage:

Syllabi promote the positivist view of knowledge by suggesting that there are correct conclusions that can be drawn with the right tools:

  • "A critical thinker considers all available evidence with an open mind and uses appropriate techniques to analyze that evidence and reach a conclusion (Lower level geology)."
  • "The main goal is to attain knowledge and comprehension of major concepts and techniques of organic chemistry (Upper level chemistry)."

As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. This is further reinforced by the use of adverbs to imply certainty such as "actually" and "in fact" which are used in syllabi to identify information as factual and beyond dispute (Biber, 2006a; 2006b). For example, "draw accurate conclusions from scientific data presented in different formats" (Lower level math). Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision.

In case it's unclear, Parson is asserting that this statement—"a critical thinker considers all available evidence with an open mind and uses appropriate techniques to analyze that evidence and reach a conclusion"—is anti-woman. She's saying that if you think facts are facts, your views are misogynistic.

Okay. In my view, no one who believes "knowledge is constructed" has any business designing airplanes and rocket ships. Of course, my views are no doubt shaped by patriarchal assumptions, like how gravity's acceleration is 9.8 m/s squared and the square root of a negative number is imaginary. (Note: I had to Google both those facts. Everyone else in the Reason office, including and especially my female colleagues, is better at math and science than I am.)

Again, the notion that women can't succeed in the sciences because they're just too feelings-oriented is sexist and wrong and ought to be opposed. Everyone is an individual—some individiauls are good at some things, others are good at other things. It's very weird to see sexist, gender-based collectivism appropriated by self-proclaimed feminists in the service of bashing female intelligence. But that's what you get in colleges these days.

Hat tip: New Real Peer Review

Photo Credit: Monkey Business Images / Dreamstime

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.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    In which case STEM is a field reserved for masculine thinkers and feminine thinkers can still cluster in sociology. What's the problem?

  • Echo Chamber||

    It's all Barbie's fault: "Math is hard"

  • Rhywun||

    I think the movement is more anti-male than pro-female anymore.

  • kbolino||

    In their zero-sum worldview, there's no difference between the two. Decades of pushing women into STEM haven't moved the numbers much (and last I saw, Computer Science has fewer women than before). So naturally we have to tear men down.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yep, they've tried to build women in STEM up, but it didn't work. So now it's time to go to plan B: tear men down.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I know many (basement dwelling) men in STEM have been trying to build women for years.

  • Zeb||

    This study sounds pretty anti-female to me.

  • kbolino||

    That is the ultimate implication of all this bullshit, that women can't handle all the "masculinity" and thus must be coddled. Needless to say, there are lots of women who are not so keen on being painted as helpless children.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Like Robby, you've done a fine job speaking truth while sidestepping certain unpleasant points and (thereby) preserving your mainstream viability. kudos

  • kbolino||

    The only way I'd have "mainstream viability" is if you ignored a solid chunk of my posts.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    [concedes argument]

  • Diane Merriam||

    I ran into it with one professor in particular who thought women had no business in engineering (yes, this was 35+ years ago). I dealt with it the best way possible - I earned the highest grade in the class even with him trying to rig it against me a couple of times.

    While we never became friends, as I did with many of my professors, we did eventually get on speaking terms to where he showed that he had began to doubt a few of his assumptions. That's the only way true change comes about. Real world proof, not SJW slogans.

  • d_remington||

    "While we never became friends, as I did with many of my professors,"

    This shit here is why women have no place in engineering.

  • LV||

    But that is hard. Better if we legislate the outcome rather than prove someone wrong. Yes?

    (nicely done, by the way. love people who don't or simply won't fit the mold. exceptions should be recognized and given the respect they deserve.)

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Feminists can't even agree - anti-sex or sex-positive? Well, it depends on the feminist. I see a lot of men make pretty vulgar comments on attractive women's social media profiles - but the comments specifically aimed at hurting feelz and self esteem are usually from other women.

    All anecdotal, obviously, but still it makes me laugh at the hypocrisy.

    For a lot of self-proclaimed feminists, it has nothing to do with women's freedom. Just look at how prominent feminists treat high-profile women that refuse to call themselves feminists. I thought women should be free to make up their own minds..

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's been true for a long, long time. The scientific method being inherently masculine has been an influential idea within feminism since at least the 70s, along with essentially the whole of anti-male animus present in the ideology.

  • WTF||

    Let's see, would I rather drive a 40-ton payload across a bridge designed with math, or across one designed using "women's ways of knowing"?

  • BCG||

    Come on, if it's a "wise Latina woman", the bridge will hold! Right??

  • The Last American Hero||

    I thought wise Latina knowledge was better applied in tunneling and scaling scenarios than outright bridge building.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *narrows gaze*

  • Slumbrew||

    *snork*

  • LV||

    No! We need to invest in "infrastructure" because the stuff we have already paid, repeatedly, to be maintained needs more money to be maintained. Did you not get the memo?

  • ||

    That "other ways of knowing" bullshit is a rage trigger for me. And it's not just women, it's medical quacks, luddites, etc.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Hell, I agree with the statement on its face and even then I find that 99% of its usage and the content that follows the phrase is going to be utterly farcical.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That "other ways of knowing" bullshit is a rage trigger for me.

    Same here. If something isn't a verifiable fact than it's not a fact, regardless of what your "other ways of knowing" (feelz) tells you.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh. Nothing is a "verifiable fact" in that sense; at best you have observations that seem to conform well to a prior methodology such as the scientific method or historical methodology and the like. Having other methodologies besides those two for trying to understand or utilize reality outside yourself is pretty damn important.

    Nothing in this means "substitute any methodology with saying NATIVE AMERICAN SPIRITUALITY as much as possible", naturally.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    To be fair, at the quantum level, "verifiable fact" starts to break down and the very act of measurement/observation seems to alter what is happening. And this has been known by those sexist physicists for close to a hundred years.

    But somehow I doubt that's what these people have in mind. They wouldn't know quantum mechanics from a hole in the ground.

  • Invisible Finger||

    would I rather drive a 40-ton payload across a bridge designed with math

    Does that math include the political math?

    How quickly should the bridge decay so we can have another infrastructure spending package to buy votes from the construction trades in order to rebuild the bridge? Do we pay wages the market will bear, do we pay wages based on a theoretical prevailing wage, or do we pay wages based on a multiplier of the theoretical prevailing wage. Do we budget for having grief counselors on retainer in case a construction accident occurs? How many featherbedding no-show jobs go to women and minorities? How much of the actual contraction jobs go to women? Does the re-work make the original work count as part of the no-work jobs?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Ironically, Ayn Rand was big on A is A. Of course she absolutely loathed feminists.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Isn't it interesting that nearly all feminists and other leftards denigrate the only significant female philosopher in the last couple of centuries?

    -jcr

  • Diane Merriam||

    Not just women's ... I fell in love (figuratively speaking) with one prof on the first day of class when after presenting the syllabus a student asked about his grade curve. His response? "Five years from now you people are going to be designing the elevators I'm riding in. These are my criteria."

    How I wish every educator had the same standards.

  • Number 2||

    Didn't Lawrence Summers get drummed out of Harvard for merely suggesting that it was possible that women's minds were less able to deal with math and science?

  • Heedless||

    Even more ridiculous. He was drummed out for suggesting that men's IQ has a higher variance, so you see fewer female outliers.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And only niggas and say "nigga".

  • MarkLastname||

    He essentially restated confirmed scientific facts, and feminists ran him out because of it. I met a female biologist who proudly proclaimed that she was one of the women who walked out during Summers's talk. That was one of the moments that made realize that not only are lunatics real people outside of the Internet, the often occupy positions of authority.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Not to defend Summers, who is (was?) a prominent democrat and advisor to the Clintons, but I don't think he meant to imply that no women is able to make a good scientist.

    It was more like he was saying that as a percentage, there are fewer who have the chops (and interest) to get to that level. And that is not merely a matter of some kind of affirmative action program for women in science. You can't really argue with that. (At least a rational person can't.)

  • MarkLastname||

    Yes, this is precisely what he was saying. He said (I think exactly) that there are "more male idiots and more male geniuses." Which is true. Nothing Summers said in that speech should be controversial.

  • Brochettaward||

    Clearly, we need to ban science until it gets its act together.

  • kbolino||

    Besides, all those STEM majors are skipping out on the most important parts of college, activism and protesting. They spend all their time on bullshit like "homework" and "interning" and "getting jobs". Pshaw.

  • ||

    Every fall, the EE classes would start out with a bunch of freshman gals who were sure they were going to become an EE.

    They were circled by a bunch of male underclassman like sail fish rounding up a bait ball.

    Then by mid semester most of them had dropped out and gone into Liberal Arts. Mostly because the STEM courses had lots of homework and real answers. The liberal arts majors in their dorm didn't have any of that. They had to write one paper a semester and as long as they parroted their professor's pet theories it was all good. Left a lot of time for hanging out and partying.

  • ||

    The other half of that is that every female Chem E who graduated with me was more heavily recruited than the top male. So, sure, they were 1/3rd of the class, but as far as I know, every single one went on to do exactly what she wanted -- grad school or job -- got her first pick.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Brett is correct

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Same observation for Aerospace Eng. I was told all through college that if you wanted to have a good chance of landing a job with one of the large aerospace companies (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc) you had better get at least 3.0 GPA. Minimum. I know several women that had less than 3.0 GPAs who had jobs lined up before graduation, meanwhile several men who had GPA's between 3.0 and 3.5 who were struggling to even get interviews (myself included). And if you were a man with less than a 3.0, your only hope was to try to catch on with a smaller company by networking with their hiring managers like crazy and hope for the best. Then after 2-3 years maybe you could be considered "employable" by one of the big boys.

  • Glide||

    Second this experience for Chem E.

  • ||

    Which is not meant as a complaint, necessarily. I got screwed by a prof on an letter of recommendation, which he lied about -- or misremembered -- completing. So it isn't like my results were in any way shaped by the ladies'. Nor do I think they got any special treatment in their grading. I'm just pointing out that if we're still doing sex discrimination in Chem E, we're doing it wrong.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    plus, only the minority of STEM bosses want to hire sexy 22-23 year old dudes.

  • Zeb||

    I suppose it depends on the school and program. But I found the workload in "liberal arts" fields to be pretty comparable to that in math (I was a double major in math and philosophy). A lot more reading in philosophy, but more regular assigned homework for math. And I never had a philosophy class that didn't assign at least 3 or 4 significant writing assignments.

    I always wondered why people who didn't know what they wanted to do seemed to end up as English majors when math seemed like a much easier major to complete if you just wanted to half-ass it. I never took a single English class, so maybe it was easier than I imagined.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    In my experience as a Comp E who took a lot of English classes, it was a lot easier to read 4 novels and write 10-20 page 'feels' papers than to figure out Z-transforms and linear programming. It may take about the same amount of time to read 'Fathers and Sons' as to learn how to do the programming, but the focus level required is a lot higher on the later.

    Math, in my experience, requires some degree of abstract visualization, which a lot of people have trouble with, which is why having a teacher who explains it well is critical. Most grad TAs (who do the 100 level classes) do not explain it well.

  • Zeb||

    I guess philosophy (the kind I was interested in anyway) is more like math than English in that way. Your papers actually had to make the point you said you were making with logic and arguments.

  • Heedless||

    You had a very different undergrad math program than I did. Freshmen multivariable calculus started with a 15 hour problem set each week at the lowest level and just went up from there. I think I averaged 25 hours a week on just that one class, and I was only at the second most advanced level.

  • Zeb||

    Linear algebra and multi-variable calc were a bit more work intensive. But after that I stopped doing much calculation heavy stuff.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah I could write 15 page A papers for history classes in a day or two no problem; lots of flakes in that field. Very interesting but way too easy. In calc classes I struggled to get a B.

  • Heedless||

    You had a very different undergrad math program than I did. Freshmen multivariable calculus started with a 15 hour problem set each week at the lowest level and just went up from there. I think I averaged 25 hours a week on just that one class, and I was only at the second most advanced level.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    The solution is force STEM majors to take (and pass) some required courses such as Wymyn's Studies, Cis-Hetero Eradication And Termination (C.H.E.A.T.) and some specialized Cultural Appropriation Resistance Training. (C.A.R.T.)

    These sexist science-wannabees need to learn to put the C.A.R.T. before the horse.

  • SugarFree||

    Is there in truth no beauty?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Keats was a cishetero shitlord

  • WTF||

    Dead white male! DEAD WHITE MALE!!!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    What is "a good white man?" /SJW Jeopardy

  • Zeb||

    Then why did he write like a fag?

  • tarran||

    There are several different schools of feminism.

    Some believe women are the equal of men.

    Some believe women are superior to men on the basis of some utilitarian criteria.

    The libertarian schools believe women and men should be treated equally under the law, but otherwise people should be free to make their own decisions how to treat men and women.

    Then there are a set of schools that believe women are weak and or inferior to men and must be protected from them. I call them timorous feminists. They are the schools that think women need the safe spaces such as purdah. That men are rape machines just waiting to rape them rapily. And they believe many of the same things that the male chauvinists they decry do.

  • WTF||

    They are delicate flowers who need to be protected and coddled and given special preference to compete with men who are equal to and even superior to men in every way.
    This is why it's wrong to use logic to "know" things.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "This is why it's wrong to use logic to "know" things."

    Speaking as a life-long Trek fan, this is why I wish our planet could be more like Vulcan. So many humans eschew logic and rely on emotions. It's one thing that the dyed-in-the-wool liberal Gene Roddenberry got absolutely right.

    Emotions are meant to be carefully controlled and they should always be secondary to logic. To fail to control one's emotions is not only dangerous to self and to one's society, it should also be a cause for a deep sense of shame.

    It sucks that, 50 years on, we still don't have a transporter or faster-than-light travel. But it sucks even more that we are further than ever from logic over emotions and fewer women wear mini-skirts.

  • Diane Merriam||

    No one is equal to anyone else ... not even themselves from one day to the next. The question is, can you do the work? If you can, then anyone who won't pay you what you're worth is losing out.

    There was a recent study (I'd have to look up the reference but I think it was on FEE), that showed that companies who discriminated in their hiring had a much higher incidence of failure than those who didn't - almost double the rate.

    Doesn't prove that the discrimination itself was the cause, but the mindset that includes discrimination isn't terribly conducive to business success (and probably not in a lot of other areas of life either).

  • The Fusionist||

    Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin were self-hating women who accepted male-supremacist notions of so-called "science."

  • Bubba Jones||

    Franklin got screwed by Watson. He was a really misogynist prick when I met him at dinner.

  • MarkLastname||

    Watson is an all round asshole and frankly not nearly as good a scientist as he was made out to be. He largely got lucky ending up working in the same lab as Crick.

  • Slumbrew||

    Yeah, strange guy but I'll give a 'nice Watson' story: my mom worked as CSHL for many years and, shortly after she was laid off, my father was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma and given a few months to live.

    She had barely interacted with Watson in all the years she was there but was willing to try anything, so asked him if there was anything he could do (not sure what she was even expecting). Instead of blowing off an ex-employee with some vague ask, he said "here's the number of X, the head of oncology at Sloan Kettering, tell him I send you" (or somesuch).

    A week later my father was a patient there. He was given an autologous stem cell transplant, which I believe was still experimental (at least for non-Hodgkin); he lived for well over a decade after that.

    So, yes, Jim Watson is a bit of an ass but he had his moments of being a mensch.

  • Brochettaward||

    There's no argument made here on how this will improve the results achieved by science. That's not even a concern compared to making science adapt to what the author presumes women prefer.

  • Rhywun||

    "Diversity" makes everything better and anyone who questions that is worse than you-know-who.

  • Florida Hipster||

    Tom Riddle?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Chucklesnorted coffee on that one. Ow. Well done.

  • Col. Chestbridge||

    You guys hear about Tommy Riddle? I heard he hates books. And juice.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Trump?

  • WTF||

    Please, Trump is literally worse than Hitler. Everyone knows this.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The point is not improving the results of science. It is increasing the level of power and influence wielded by feminist scholars over society at large, as has been the case for those in the hard sciences outside their area of expertise.

    While generally I think the exalted status of the expert outside their narrow field is deserving of a good knocking, dislodging the Neil Degrasse Tysons and Bill Nyes for the sake of crowning Judith Butler as Queen seems like a decided step down.

  • Heedless||

    If we must have a dictator, I would much prefer one who understands statistics.

  • MarkLastname||

    RA Fisher for president of the universe.

  • Citizen X||

    It presupposes that certain stylistic choices—command words like "will" and "must"—are inherently masculine and anti-woman

    I, uh

    wut

  • The Fusionist||

    Feminists never say that people *must* do this or that, they always ask nicely and respect those who disagree!

    /sarc

  • Spartacus||

    Having looked at numerous syllabi in non-STEM courses, I am pretty sure that the prevalence of those stylistic choices is about the same everywhere. The syllabus for our art history courses is way stricter than most of the math ones.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I think feminists prefer "shall" and "is required to."

  • See Double You||

    the process of acquiring knowledge—the scientific method—is "inherently discriminatory to women and minorities," according to the study.

    Is the "and minorities" bit just some throwaway thought?

    I think Women and Minorities would make a great band name.

  • kbolino||

    NYT: "STEM has objective standards: Women and Minorities hardest hit"

  • Atanarjuat||

    Album name: Hardest Hit

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "Hardest Hits".

  • Rhywun||

    It's so incredibly stupid and condescending that I *wish* I was a woman or (racial?) minority so I could tell these idiots to get bent.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Meh, if you did, you would be labeled as an Uncle Tom and dismissed from consideration or worse.

    You are not allowed to disagree with them, particularly if you are member of one of their protected groups.

  • WTF||

    "Minorities", period? Even Asians?

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Robby identifies as mathematically female.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Every third hair. That's why it's so manageable.

  • WTF||

    "If there are 27 pieces of fruit sushi at the buffet, and Robby shows up and eats 6 pieces every half hour for 2 hours, how much fruit sushi is left?"

  • ||

    D) Not enough for the other guests, so ENB rats him out to H&R, forever cementing his Froot Sooshi legacy.

  • ||

    "A+"

  • Citizen X||

    Trick question. Robby will consume no less than 22 pieces every fifteen minutes, until a waiter fat-shames him into stopping.

  • robc||

    Negative 3.

  • ||

    So he's bulimic then; *that* answers everything!

  • spqr2008||

    If he eats 6 pieces at first, -3.

  • The Fusionist||

    If you think that the invocation of logic and the insistence on Right Answers are a male monopoly, you probably haven't been arguing with the right women.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I've been in discussions with women firmly convinced that men couldn't act with complete agency due to hormones and emotional inferiority.

    It's kind of... I mean, what do you say? I see men make this argument about women. Then I see women make this argument about men. And I'm kind of all, What the fuck do you even SAY to that shit?"

    It's boggling, but there you are.

  • Florida Hipster||

    ONE LOOK?!?

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Testosterone and Estrogen affect the mental dynamics of an individual, generally, the same way?

    That equivalence is precarious...

    Potentially pudding?

    Thoughts?

  • WTF||

    You know who else liked pudding?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The British?

  • ||

    But not the British Children?

  • ||

    Now now, let's not be hasty...

  • The Fusionist||

    I see what you did there.

    But you need to eat your meat first.

  • The Fusionist||

    oh, of course bacon-magic beat me to it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You know what they don't need?

  • Citizen X||

    Bill Cosby?

  • ||

  • bacon-magic||

    How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Martha Stewart?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I'm not entirely certain how your post and mine coincide. Though I am enjoying the link so far and have always found your speech patterns charming, albeit confusing.

    And your thoughts?

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    You expressed a thought that I took to mean: "The arguments, from men and women, that suggest sex hormones affect gendered individuals differently, (e.g. denying agency, suggesting emotional inferiority, etc.) are equally irrelevant and frustrating; thus, invalid." Tell me if I am off-base with this assumption.

    So I figured I would get your thoughts on what neuroscientists think about the effect of sex hormones

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Close. Quite close, perhaps. Like this.

    "The arguments, from men and women, that suggest sex hormones affect gendered individuals (e.g. denying agency, suggesting emotional inferiority, etc.) are equally valid. Each then commonly proceeds to use this information as a flail with which to further their position in a war of imagined scarcity."

    Irrelevancy and frustration can surely be worked in there somewhere, that was a good take. Probably with phrases like "opportunity costs".

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Thank you for clarifying.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Ok, you get a 9.0 from the East German judge on that one.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Constructing my own knowledge from experience and dynamic, I conclude that Parson is a tool of the patriarchy used to keep the hive vagina down. Bad woman! Bad!

    "After careful, meticulous research I have concluded that I am the rightest person who ever lived and the only one qualified to give orders around here."

    Ten pounds of bullshit in a five-pound cannon.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Everyone else in the Reason office, including and especially my female colleagues, are better at math and science than I am.
  • The Fusionist||

    Not in hair quality, they're not.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    When Robby turns down a date it's because he really is washing his hair.

  • Rhywun||

    "My God. It's full of dandruff."

  • See Double You||

    Ouch. Robby humbly reveals his lack of scientific knowledge, and you go and pull that, HM, ya jerk.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What? Robby can't be into a little FemDom?

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Fragile Masculinity is vogue.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    You mean woke.

  • Florida Hipster||

    If you call getting in a three point stance so he can be punt kicked in the balls " a little", sure.

  • Zeb||

    Better at making subject and verb agree in number as well.

  • Atanarjuat||

    OT, but I just got an Amazon ad for a pressure cooker on the HnR page. I'd click on spambot's links before that.

  • kbolino||

    Did you recently order a pressure cooker, or some other kitchen supplies?

    I've noticed that Amazon ads are site-agnostic and just reflect whatever I most recently purchased. Because if I needed one weed whacker, surely I need a dozen!

  • ||

    The H&R ads are very reactive. I comment on drug prohibition and I get an ad for drug rehab services. I comment about Chippergate and I get an ad for power equipment.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I shudder to think what pops up on SugarFree's screen after one of his "stories".

  • SugarFree||

    That's why I use infocondoms.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *head explodes*

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Ads? What ads?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Preet is watching you....

  • Echo Chamber||

    "I just got an Amazon ad for a pressure cooker "
    Interesting timing given recent events in NY.
    Govt shares its TWL with Amazon in a new sting operation?

  • ||

    "Why does the hyperlink have fbi.gov in it?"

  • WTF||

    Well, how else are they going to frame you and then loudly proclaim that they thwarted another terrorist attack?

  • Zeb||

    Syllabi promote the positivist view of knowledge

    No shit. That's kind of essential to the whole endeavor of STEM, I think.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging."

    There's nothing wrong with that statement, and there's nothing wrong with noting that science changes.

    There is a huge problem with poorly educated people believing that science is a body of unchanging and undisputed knowledge.

    "Okay. In my view, no one who believes "knowledge is constructed" has any business designing airplanes and rocket ships.

    Anyone who doesn't understand that everything we know is revisable given new observations and evidence that contradict what we know today has no business teaching science at a post-secondary level.

    All scientific knowledge is tentative, and if you don't get that, Robby, then maybe you should leave the science writing to Bailey.

  • See Double You||

    Granted, science is ever-changing; old theories are challenged and displaced by new ones. However, for practical teaching purposes, should STEM programs spend their time challenging whether gravity accelerates at 9.8 m/s²?

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    I disagree… the acceleration due to gravity is 32 ft/s²!

  • Diane Merriam||

    On what planet, at what altitude and to how many significant digits?

    Precision gentlemen, precision :)

    (Or am I making evil assumptions about gender?)

  • Zeb||

    The thing is, in scientific fields, when you are an undergrad or even a grad student in many cases, you are there to learn what people already know. Once you have a good handle on that, then you can start challenging and refining what we supposedly know.

    Of course there are exceptions. But for the most part, there is good reason why that is how it works.

    If you are a theoretical physicist or philosopher, it's a fine thing to question what we really know and can know. But, particularly in an engineering field, a lot of theory is so well established and useful that the default assumption that it is true and settled is a practical necessity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This article is about the appeal of STEM fields to women.

    And engineering offers the opportunity for more creativity than that. So does Mathematics.

    You want to point to a field that should fundamentally discourage creativity, look to Accounting.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    Finance on the other hand is very creative.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not saying anyone should discourage creativity. Just that in technical fields, there are certain things you need to learn before you can really get into the more creative parts. The creativity builds on the body of knowledge that has been established for the most part. You don't go and design a better vacuum cleaner without understanding how the current vacuum cleaner works first.

  • triclops||

    Yep, at least learn how to read before you write your brilliant novel.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    Except knowledge isn't a construct, it's sedimentary. We can form models that help explain what we think we know, and those models can be fairly rigid or dynamic depending on the state of the science, but we're still drawing on accreting deposits of information and building sand castles with it. I think Parson wants to make it a construct to be understood within the framework of patriarchy theory, an outbuilding of the patriarchy constructed by latent misogynists which can be demolished and remade in a more "feminine" context. And that is a very, if I may, problematic view of the world.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Depends on what the problem is, doesn't it?

    If she's trying to understand why so few women enter STEM fields, and that's part of the explanation, then it isn't problematic.

    It's part of the explanation.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    As an alternative theory: the bell curve.

    Or another theory altogether: feminist biddies convincing young women that pursuing certain degrees is hopeless because misogyny, so they may as well join the cause and study gender theory or pursue more traditional roles or drop out altogether.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    "Someone explain this to my cult for us!"

  • Hail Retaxes||

    We can form models that help explain what we think we know, and those models can be fairly rigid or dynamic depending on the state of the science, but we're still drawing on accreting deposits of information and building sand castles with it.

    "And now, I will describe how knowledge is constructed." Oops.

  • SugarFree||

    Nope. You are forgetting the feminist definition of constructed. To them, a construction is a skewing framework built on prejudice and bigotry, inherently subjective and biased.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Observation is fixed, to the limit of measurements. Explanation of why is where science lies and things can change.

  • Col. Chestbridge||

    everything we know is revisable

    False. Everything we know is contextual. New knowledge doesn't contradict old knowledge so long as you keep in mind the specific contexts of each.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was talking about scientific knowledge in the present tense.

    But I appreciate your point.

    Thank you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Concepts like objective truth and the scientific method are inherently sexist, study says.

    +1 90s critical theory.

    We really are in PC 2.0.

  • ||

    Cecilia Payne is rolling over in her grave.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It presupposes that certain stylistic choices—command words like "will" and "must"—are inherently masculine and anti-woman

    This is me with my eyebrows raised... very high.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Parsons also seems to be saying it is too much to expect a woman to approach a problem without engaging her prejudices.

    Nice thing about hard science, Nature's laws are hard and fast. They do not care what you think, they cannot be negotiated with it intimidated. If you go against them, what you trying to do does not work, or at least, not very well.

  • the other Jim||

    "Hard and fast." Just more inherently masculine words that are anti-woman!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This has been the case for a long, long time. Feminist literature like Carolyn Merchant's The Death Of Nature have made claims that science is a male discourse and form of punishing women/nature for many, many years. Feminist discourse has been a poisoned well since the time that its aims moved away from addressing laws restricting women's autonomy and instead became about the "liberation" of women from social structures deemed to be unsatisfactory to feminist academics.

  • WTF||

    Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision.

    They keep using that word, "knowledge". I do not think it means what they think it means.

  • Aresen||

    Her bio on the original paper:

    Laura Parson is a doctoral candidate in the teaching and learning department, higher education concentration, at the University of North Dakota. She has a MEd, Adult Education concentration, and TESOL certificate from Westminster College.

    As expected, all fuzzy stuff. No hard subjects.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So, you agree with her?

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    Plenty of hard feelings, though.

  • Libertarian||

    My, she's very multi-talented: she's a phd candidate in teaching AND learning.

  • ||

    She might be an EdD candidate.

  • Citizen X||

    She doesn't have any degrees in knowing shit, however.

  • WTF||

    She uses women's ways of knowing, you cis-hetero shitlord!

  • Eman||

    If those who can't teach, education professors have got to be the best

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So I guess I need to pull out my dusty old 1990s era response... did she use logic and reason to make her argument?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Obviously not

  • Jerryskids||

    Concepts like objective truth and the scientific method are inherently sexist, study says.

    Well, if things like growing a beard and peeing standing up are inherently sexist, sure. That is, one sex is better able to do it than another. But the traditional meaning of "sexist" is discriminating against one sex over another for no good reason and I'm not seeing the "no good reason" part. Maybe men are better at STEM the same way they're better at growing beards and peeing standing up?

    But I'm sure these people are familiar with the traditional meaning of words and that's really what they're out to change. "Sexism", like "racism", "homophobia", "right-wing extremist", ad infinitum, mean whatever they say they mean and whatever they choose to say they mean at any given time. I mean, you're a racist, sexist member of the oppressor class and you're wrong if you think words should have some fixed meaning - giving words a fixed meaning is itself an example of the oppression of the racist sexist culture we live in.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That said, this:

    In my view, no one who believes "knowledge is constructed" has any business designing airplanes and rocket ships


    Is utter uneducated nonsense. There's a long-running debate within mathematics about whether maths are constructed or if we are simply discovering maths that somehow have a Platonic independent existence; mathematicians from both sides of this debate have done excellent work in their field regardless of where they fall. It is sufficiently subtle a question that I don't trust anyone in feminist studies or journalism to adequately represent it, but suffice it to say it is hardly as Manichean as saying that one side is male and another female or that one side is pro-science and the other against.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yeah, I was going to write something like "Yeah, Stephen Hawking has no business designing rocket ships!"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Not without a woman's touch, he doesn't.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    From what I understand, Prof. Hawking has been touched by plenty of women, the old dog.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Heh. Your rebuttal may have been late, but fashionably so: it was pithier and more amusing.

  • Lee Genes||

    If you take this premise to it's logical conclusion under a technocratic government, I don't think she's going to like the results.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are two prominent modes of the scientific method.

    There's Popper's fallibilism and there's Epistemological Anarchism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Fallibilism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Epistemological_anarchism

    They're diametrically opposed in a number of areas.

    They both agree that "science is constructed" and "subject to change".

    The science is never settled.

    Show us persuasive evidence that the sun orbits the earth after all, and the science will change.

    If some academics have come to imagine it being otherwise, and women are less susceptible to that kind of thinking for some reason, then that's interesting.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    The science is never settled.

    Except with global cooling global warming climate change.

  • BikeRider||

    This study has enlightened me. Climate change is settled only for evil, fact-minded, anti-women men.

    True feminist know that climate change depends on how you feel about it. They can construct their own knowledge on the issue.

    Who knew that climate change denial was a feminist movement??

  • Diane Merriam||

    Facts are not constructed. Explanations of why those facts are what they are are constructed. Science is explanation and explanations can be improved, but the facts themselves? No. The only thing that can "change" about facts is the available limits of measurement. That's just a technological matter of precision, not a change.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    What's the feminist view on shoes and ponies?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    "Let's buy some!" and "Everyone gets one!," respectively.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    "Everyone gets one!" - Vermin Supreme

    If Feminists believe Everyone Gets one [Ponies],
    And Vermin Supreme believes Everyone Gets one [Ponies],
    Then Vermin Supreme is a feminist?

  • Eman||

    If a = c and b also = c, I think b probably = a too

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's the feminist view on shoes

    Flats only.

  • Lee Genes||

    So what about transsexuals? Do we get a new designation added to the list where you're female and good at math?

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    Gender traitors.

  • Eric Bana||

    And here's why so many college students decide to major in stupid areas rather than STEM. You can just bullshit whatever the hell you want and it's passable.

  • Echo Chamber||

    "You can just bullshit whatever the hell you want and it's passable."
    ... and then wind up with a ton of student debt and no job prospects. Outside of govt, that is

  • tarran||

    "A critical thinker considers all available evidence with an open mind and uses appropriate techniques to analyze that evidence and reach a conclusion (Lower level geology)."
    "The main goal is to attain knowledge and comprehension of major concepts and techniques of organic chemistry (Upper level chemistry)."

    As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. ... Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, [they] reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision.

    What tripe! The two quoted examples in no way demonstrate what the author is claiming.

    The first statement is announcing they will teach a method of analysing a class of problems. The second is announcing that they will acquaint the student what other people who have spent their lives working in the field are the important concepts and approaches for describing. predicting or analyzing the subject of the field. It in no way precludes the notion that novel concepts can come along or implies that it is the alpha and omega of organic chemistry.

    Basically, the whole thing sounds like a more erudite version of Eric Cartman.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    More erudite?

  • wef||

    Why comment on a fourth-rate wannabe scholar with a bs degree in a bs field from a third rate university?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because it's very very important.

  • commodious is bimbing dickos||

    Every proxy battle in the never-ending culture war is the Most Important Issue Ever.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Yeah, these non-issues keep cropping up. It's like Reason is desperately trying to engage in a culture war by reporting on things the MSM does not report on. It's almost like Reason wants to cover the mewling of idiots in positions of authority in a culture that prioritizes college education and mandates social theory education.

    For Preet's sake, what a colossal waste of time. Let's talk about Muslims being feminist already.

  • ||

    Because today's mewling idiots of academia are going to inform the decisions of tomorrow's politicians. This coverage is an early warning system. And while we may rightly laugh at those people their opinions are not likely to go away anytime soon and are likely to be embraced by a wider audience. Remember that they have captive audiences of impressionable youth, and can enforce ideological compliance by failing those who don't tow the lion.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Guess I need to start using the /sarc flag. Or the /snark flag. Or I could let you, dear reader, make up your own mind...

    HM: Not as big an issue as it is being made out to be; stop overreacting. Eat your fruit sushi.
    aCGtZ: Maybe we shouldn't dismiss cultural marxism when it crops up; start reacting already. Dig a ditch out behind your house for your family to hide in when the bombs fall tomorrow.

    Time will tell.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Right. Today's mewling idiots are tomorrow's petty government apparatchiks and functionaries.

  • Rhywun||

    For Preet's sake

    I'm stealing that.

  • Eman||

    "For preet's sake". I like.

  • Raven Nation||

    Because it's always possible it becomes a new standard and incorporated into education across the country.

  • jjjjj||

    Based on my Facebook feed, most men don't understand science too.

  • robc||

    My school is now 69:31 Male to Female which is WAY better than back in my day.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I was in a computer forensics course when the University was collecting photographs for some PR bullshit or another. They litterally had to bring in their own token woman becuase none were enrolled in the class. I don't know how many even met the course pre-requisites. But I'm not in that picture, despite being actually enrolled in the class (and passing with flying colors) and she is because it would look bad to have an advanced course that was all-male.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    who was better looking?

  • WTF||

    I'll guess the one with the boobs.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Most definately. I'm sad that I didn't find out her name.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If it spins fast enough perhaps we can reach escape velocity.

    I am become SMOD.

  • SugarFree||

    If you spin fast enough
    then maybe the broken pieces of your heart
    will stay together
    But some things I've seen lately
    make me doubt it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Jesus Christ! Next you'll be telling us that one can have a sense of self-esteem and worth through one's accomplishments and interpersonal relationships rather than through indulging in Millennial shame culture "cringe".

  • ||

    I am so happy that my son is going to North Dakota State University. I'm starting to think that going to a school with "State" in its title is a smart plan.

    The Fighting Sioux of UND can go fuck themselves if they are doing this sort of work (although I wonder how this will go over with the voters in NDak).

    BTW: Iowa Hawkeye fans can suck Bison dick too

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm starting to think that going to a school with "State" in its title is a smart plan.

    Not if it's the State University of New York.

    Avoid SUNY.

  • Tundra||

    Bison dick.

    We're starting the visiting process. NDSU is on the list. Many, many schools are not.

  • Sevo||

    Some sciences don't seem all that 'gendered':
    "Distribution of Medical School Graduates by Gender"
    2015
    Female: 8,907
    Male: 9,798
    (don't know how to shrink the addy; search for KFF.org)

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Medical school is about caring. Something at which women are inherently superior.

  • ||

    Oh really? Oh Paul, you foolish, foolish man...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Case in point.

  • ||

    You haven't met my wife, have you? Besides, as just about any woman can tell you, male OB-GYNs are much more likely to warm speculums, without prior request, than female OB-GYNs.

    Besides that canard of, "women care more," particularly in medicine, is total horseshit. Having now practiced, and practicing internationally, I am actually taken aback by how nonchalant, indifferent, and cold, female physicians are, on the whole. USA docs are a little more empathetic than Euro ones, but not by much.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Then there was the woman on her first clinical rotation doing her first pelvic exam who forgot to cut her fingernails first ... ouch!!!

    But I did mention it to her in private instead of in front of the guys. She was embarrassed as all get out.

  • Eman||

    Its gotta be "specula(e)"

  • ||

    +1 Dr. Cameron

  • ||

    Hier

    And, you do that as follows, use angle brackets (aka less-than and greater-than signs) instead of square brackets:

    [a href="http://diabetes.org/"]Sugar-Free Link[/a]

    The text "Sugar-Free Link" will appear as orange text and be a clickable link to diabetes dot org. The text between the quote marks in the [a href=""] html tag must be a working URL and cannot contain any spaces. The [/a] closes the html tag.

    This gets around the fifty-characters-per-word limit on H&R which stymies many people who try to post naked URLs. It also is a courtesy to your fellow posters as you can see where the link redirects to by mousing-over the orange text; look at the bottom left of your browser window and you should see that the link goes to diabetes dot org. You could also use a link-shortener such as tinyurl, but there is no way of telling where those go until you click on them.

  • SugarFree||

    naked URLs

    Kinky.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Http links don't seem to have the same limits as https.

  • GILMORE™||

    The answer to this is simple: have a group of scientists examine the "post-structuralist/feminist research method" and explain how it is all silly horseshit which no adult anywhere should be asked to take seriously outside of some occasional backroom English seminars at 2nd rate universities. And then demand that scientists everywhere collectively be made a Sammich.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Parson is too fucking stupid to get a real degree, so she spends her time sniveling at those who can. The scandal here is that anyone employs these pseudo-intellectual parasites at all.

    -jcr

  • GILMORE™||

    The scandal here is that anyone employs these pseudo-intellectual parasites at all.

    its worse than you think.

    People much like her run the Dept of Ed., hundreds of school districts, administrate thousands of institutions.

    Her credentials might seem mockworthy from your perspective, but from the POV of the "Establishment Educational World", she's got the resume that puts her in position to wield considerable authority, eventually.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The syllabi for college-level STEM courses—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—are "gendered" because they promote the idea that knowledge can be ascertained through reason. This is a masculine concept that hurts women's feelings and makes it difficult for them to succeed.

    Oh for fuck's sake. That's really all there is to say at this point. I'm pretty sure I recall seeing various mocking comments here and elsewhere saying that at some point the SJW's/ feminists were going to make that argument, and now they actually have. It's like they're actively trying to go beyond parody.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm pretty sure I recall seeing various mocking comments here and elsewhere saying that at some point the SJW's/ feminists were going to make that argument

    Hell, here's a prime example from the glaciers thread.

  • Zeb||

    They have been making the argument for decades.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Then perhaps I was blissfully unaware. Ignorance really is bliss in this instance.

  • Zeb||

    Those comments weren't satire.

  • Eman||

    I remember seeing a fake ad on snl in the 90s for a five blade razor that takes a layer of skin off

  • Tundra||

    She hot?

  • robc||

    play D&D

    Its like you cant even read.

  • robc||

    play D&D

    Its like you cant even read.

  • Tundra||

    I also search for Yetis in my spare time. What's your point?

  • GILMORE™||

    Trigger warning:

    I play D&D with a woman who got her PhD in chemistry this August. She still thinks like a girl.
  • GILMORE™||

    you make it sound like an either/or thing.

  • GILMORE™||

    or, "just Elves"

  • Slumbrew||

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • Slumbrew||

    You are the worst.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    if you think facts are facts, your views are misogynistic.

    Duh, if you weren't a white male cis-gendered heterosexual shitlord, you'd understand that! /sarc

    It's very weird to see sexist, gender-based collectivism appropriated by self-proclaimed feminists in the service of bashing female intelligence. But that's what you get in colleges these days.

    Relevant

  • Invisible Finger||

    It certainly explains why Janet Yellen and Hilary Clinton have no clue how an economy works.

  • WTF||

    To be fair, most people have no idea how an economy works.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Unfortunately, Yellen's understanding is far below that of your average tow truck driver.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    RICO YOU COMMUNIST! It is 32 Feet/Second Squared.

  • Invisible Finger||

    A Feminist Professor Says Women Can't Do Science

    Arabs have been saying this for centuries.

  • Father of Two||

    Facts are stubborn things, and apparently sexist as well.

  • WTF||

    Someone gets it.

  • ||

    So when are these fucks gonna get around to saying the law of non-contradiction is racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-semite, and anti thin crust pizza? (actually that is a bit of redundancy since the only real pizza is, by definition, thin crust)

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    ...gravity's acceleration is 9.8 m/s squared...

    I think that you mean 32'2"/s^2, unless you're a communist.

  • Diane Merriam||

    32.174049 ft/s/s, no inches in it.

    For each second you are in frictionless free fall in an average sea level Earth gravity well your velocity will increase by 32.174049+ ft per second.

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    Dividing feet into tenths, hundredths, and thousandths is just metricating; feet divide into twelfths, not tenths, you communist.
    Also, 0.174049' is just under 2 3/32", or about 2" if we're keeping the sig figs reasonable.

  • JaimeRoberto||

    Objective truth and the scientific method are just two more parts of the white man's burden.

  • Diane Merriam||

    How on Earth anyone can think that observation and logic is inherent more to one sex than the other is beyond me. That's all science is and engineering is nothing but applied science, at least that's what my engineering diploma reads. Never had cause to question it and still don't.

  • Banquo||

    "Syllabi promote the positivist view of knowledge by suggesting that there are correct conclusions that can be drawn with the right tools:"

    What that oatmeal brained feminist does not realize is that the word "correct" in this context does not mean "ideologically correct" it mean "factually correct".

  • Eman||

    Wouldn't syllabi being gendered mean that the *words* are masculine or feminine?

  • jwz||

    The problem is, professors like the author of the paper come from fields where data can be interpreted, fabricated, twisted or spun in any way to suit them. The same doesn't hold true in STEM fields. Mathematical proofs are proven, they can't be changed to fit someone's feelz. The laws of science, nature and physics aren't adjustable depending on one's emotions or on what you think is "fair."

    If you don't like those facts, stick to studying psychology and gender studies and enjoy your career in retail.

  • MarkLastname||

    This makes me want to become a professor just so when I make my syllabus I can write about penetrating the mysteries of nature and forcing her yield to our instruments while we take from her what we will; about thrusting our aroused minds into the enveloping questions of the field, over and over again if necessary, from different angles and positions, until the truth is released upon us.

  • SJW_Skeptic||

    I think I'll buy the telephone built on science and connect to the network built by science. If you feel that communication through a spiritual advisor is better fine just don't expect me to listen or pay for it.
    It is becoming time that we stop funding feminism and let the market decide. I sure the feminist professors that wrote this can get a job at subway.

  • David Kramer||

    Talk about stereotyping women.

  • Smells Like Reason||

    And so, because some self-called feminists are making a stupid argument supposedly in support of a feminist goal, Robby has made a more or less as stupid counter-argument supposedly in support of a more reasoned or realistic ideal.

    But while the study's conclusions and premises, as presented here, seem more sexist than feminist (didn't Larry Summers get fired for saying more or less the same?), there are smarter and more productive ways of characterizing and critiquing it than Robby indulges here.

    Robby of course has a job to do popping out Reason-ready copy that doesn't require more intellectual dishonesty than he's comfortable with.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Why would an any reasonably intelligent kid want to go to college any more? Great places for amassing debt, looking for sex, drug abuse, experiencing bureaucracy and apathy first hand, learning just how s***ty dorm life really is compared to your old bedroom at home, learning just how nonproductive you can be trying to read in the bookstacks ...but intelllectual pursuits? And as far as "intellectual pursuits" go, I question the value of a "liberal arts education" or a "university education" as it's defined now. There has to be a better way.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Jesus Haploid Christ, what a stupid fucking cow.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online