There is no doubt that some women excel in the hard sciences (e. g.: math, physics, computer science, and engineering) to the same extent as do men. However, it is a fact that the hard sciences are being dominated by men, by far.
That irks feminist social engineers. They assert that sexism against women is the cause of that disparity, and they intend to do something about it. The solution to the “problem” that they intend to bring about is Title IX equalization in the whole field of education, so as to adjust education in the hard sciences to bring about educational achievement for the sexes in a fashion that will match the progress and achievement of the better learners (predominantly male students) to that of the slower or less adept learners (predominantly female students).
In that manner, they hope, there will eventually and in short order be as many female graduates in the hard sciences as there are male graduates. The reality of that will of course be that, just as it happened in sports, that the number of male achievers will be adjusted downward to match the number of the few female graduates that chose subjects in the hard sciences.
It seems to me that just as we have seen over the years the elimination of male sports teams at universities and colleges, so we will get to see the elimination of courses in the hard sciences that presently are being dominated or exclusively attended by male students.
Of course, the consequence of that will be, just as it has been experienced in the field of sports, that any country that in that fashion downgrades its progress and achievements in the hard sciences will lose whatever advantages it may hold or may have held in scientific achievements.
Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the circumstances of these latest suicidal goals of the American feminist social engineers in “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” (The American, March-April 2008 issue).
Here are a few excerpts from that article.
While Title IX has been effective in promoting womens participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to statistical proportionality. That is to say, if a colleges student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be femaleeven if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated mens teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of mens and womens college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to mens participation being calibrated to the level of womens interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.
Harvard’s legendary Math 55 class does not look like America. The class roster at semester’s end? ’45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.’
Women comprise 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. The pipeline does not promise statistical parity.
‘Our goal,’ says the deputy director of the National Science Foundation, ‘is to transform…the entire culture of science and engineering in America, and to be inclusive of all.’
Baron-Cohen believes that men are, on average, wired to be better systematizers and women better empathizers. It’s a daring claim, but he has the data to back it up.
If numerical inferiority were sufficient grounds for charges of discrimination, Congress would be holding hearings on the underrepresentation of men in higher education.
Professor Emanuel said that although the discrimination report was ‘widely praised in public, it was privately deplored and disparaged in the hallways of MIT.’
It is odd that a single study of postgraduate fellowships at a Swedish university should play such a prominent role in a campaign to eliminate ‘hidden bias’ in American universities.
‘We don’t accept biology as destiny,’ says Valian. ‘We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate…I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.’
‘At bias-awareness workshops, physicists and engineers watch skits where overbearing male faculty ride roughshod over hapless but intellectually superior female colleagues.
Most scientists have no idea of the power and scope of the equity crusade. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution.
It is a very long article, but it argues unfailingly that the application of Title IX equalization in the hard sciences will be deadly to the nation’s economy. One would do well to memorize Christina Hoff Sommers’ concluding paragraph:
American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nations health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT aloneits faculty, alumni, and staffstarted more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.
With increasing frequency we hear that women’s studies programs are dying and even being eliminated in some countries due to lack of student enrolment. To conclude from that circumstance that feminism is dead or dying is surely as false and dangerous as it would have been to conclude that Marxist communism was not the dominating and driving ideology of the USSR.