A panoply of laws, policies, and targets are aimed at making us gender-fair. But government’s long arm can extend only so far. How gender-fair are we when there’s no law to strike fear into our hearts?
In my PsychologyToday.com article today, I put you in scenarios to help you self-appraise.
Showing posts with label gender bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender bias. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The Male Bashing Never Ends
Do you think these books would have been published if their titles, instead of insulting men, insulted women, or Jews, let alone Blacks? For example:
Labels:
gender bias,
gender equity,
men's issues
Monday, May 3, 2010
Nuggets You Probably Won't See
I find myself needing to turn to ever more right-leaning publications to find articles that make sense to me. Either that means I'm getting awfully conservative (I don't believe I am) or the "mainstream" media is getting so leftist that their positions defy reason or empiricism.Here are two articles in Forbes magazine that make eminent sense to me that would never appear in the "mainstream" media--e.g., the New York Times, CNN.
The Great College Hoax, includes, for example, this statement: ""There are a lot of aspects of selling education that are tinged with consumer fraud," (UCLA law professor Richard) Sander says."
Gender Bias Bunk by Christina Hoff Sommers. Here's a quote:
Over the past decade the National Science Foundation has funneled $135 million into a "gender bias" program called Advance. Its stated purpose: to advance women in science. In practice it does little to help women, but its potential to inflict lasting damage on fields that drive the American economy--engineering, physics and computer technology--is enormous...The Gender Equity project sponsors workshops aimed at transforming American laboratory culture. According to Valian, the compulsive work habits, single-minded dedication and "intense desire for achievement" that typify elite scientists not only marginalize women but also compromise good science. She says, "If we continue to emphasize and reward always being on the job, we will never find out whether leading a balanced life leads to equally good or better scientific work."A world where women (and resocialized men) earn Nobel Prizes on flextime has no basis in reality. But the Advance program is not about reality nor a reality we should aspire to...if our priority is to cure cancer, solve our energy problems, etc. Instead of pathologizing them as "workaholics," we should honor the people who work 70 hours a week in hopes of creating a breakthrough. We certainly should not be subjecting aspiring scientists to a re-education program that brainwashes them into the absurd belief that everyone, even world-class scientists would be better off if they only worked modest work hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







