Had to leave quite a bit out of last week’s article SJWs Coming for Mathematics.
The impetus for that column was an ad for math education professors who were first and foremost social justice warriors, who perhaps had a passing familiarity or interest in mathematics.
It’s not unusual for university want-ads to mention non-merit related desires. Ads for a long time included words like “Women and minorities are particularly encouraged to apply”. Meaning, of course, that non-minority men were not as encouraged.
Not encouraged is not quite discouraged, but the implication that women and minorities would receive extra credit for their non-merit characteristics was there.
To the extent these “affirmative action” programs were implemented, and they not always were, it meant that the white men who were hired had to better at their jobs than the minority non-men. This follows because, even if merit was absolutely equal between white men and minority non-men, preference would on average go to minority non-men. Meaning the white men hired had to be not just better, but markedly better to overcome his perceived lacks.
The resulting imbalance would then exacerbate the forces that called for the preferential hiring. “Why are the white men winning all the awards? Must be bias.” Affirmative action created a sort of arms race in grievance, leading first to the creation of SJWs, and then the open calls for SJW professors.
Now it is an invariable rule in any organization (including university departments) that when SJWs reach a critical threshold, the original goals of that organization sink into the background and politics rise to the fore.
If we, like mathematicians (who aren’t overly fond of math educationists), do not count mathematics education, it is clear STEM fields in universities have not quite reached this inflection point. But that mathematics education has been breached is important. Dispatching math teachers whose goals are to instill politics instead of math must weaken mathematics as a whole, and since mathematics is used in all scientific fields, all of science must (further) lapse into politics.
For instance, the would-be political digest Scientific American shows increasing influence of SJWs in STEM in their article “How Men Can Help Women in STEM: Shut Up, Sit Back and Listen“. (One wag said that the title is better without the colon.)
The author states that “only around 30 percent of researchers worldwide are women.” And he states it like it’s a bad thing, a problem that need redressing.
But suppose—just suppose!—men are not only more disposed to go into quantitative STEM fields, but that they are on average better at them than women.
Is so, enforcing mandatory equality quotas must lead to a diminution in research quality. Given our assumption, isn’t this so? Or does what really count is equality, not quality? If equality counts more, the awards, rewards and other perquisites should increase toward political involvement. We’re starting to see this in STEM.
Of course, the only reason to demand equality in STEM sex is because of the belief that both sexes are equally talented. Yet ever since Adam met Eve, there has never been evidence for this belief except desire.
But in our culture desire is sufficient proof for any belief. If a man desires to be a woman, he merely states that desire and voilà! he is a woman. If two man want to marry each other, they express that desire and whammo! matrimony is redefined.
Thus, desiring men and women be equal with any and every facility means they are equal. And if they are equal, the statistics must back that up. If not, then quotas must be imposed.
Equality is never enough, though. Memories are too long for activists to forget their past grievances. Whereas once “equality” means equal numbers of individuals with designated demographic characteristics (there must be and official list of such characteristics, since these are in reality almost without limit), once numerical parity is reached, “equality” will be redefined to include all once-merit-based rewards. This includes promotions, titles, and, the point of the whole thing, power.
It was always about power for SJWs. This is almost by definition, because that’s what politics is about. Previously, it was thought the results of STEM were more important than power politics inside STEM. But now that we’re well fed and have plenty of toys, and people have begun to turn inwards, it is natural that STEM results seem not as crucial.
And so politics will insinuate.
the only reason to demand equality in STEM sex
Isn’t STEM sex the way STEM cells reproduce — all things being equal?
“Meaning, of course, that non-minority men were not as encouraged.”
It’s everywhere within the public arena now. Bad ideas pushed by news media, TV and movies, Ideas which won’t be sustained because they are not based in truth, neither true philosophy or true numbers. Everybody’s not about to become the opposite sex or gay, or marry anything peculiar even if they are pushing lies. Truth is ultimate.
So whatever happens in the long term there’s nothing to worry about. (which for the reactionary old bores, isn’t the same as saying do nothing about it, got it?)
Be careful of the catch 22: To argue against it appears to argue “from. A place of privilege” Be careful not to act like a brute because that’s adding weight to the only strong part of the argument for fairness quoters and you’ll make people think Meryl Strepe actually has a point! (which she doesn’t. Neither does Matt Demon. They’re spoiling all their films by being political muppets.
Speaking from a place of privilege (never works with the jealous, on any matter), So playing the beast and the brute is simply playing into the hands of the opposition but of course it’s fun and very satisfying for five minutes. Don’t forget all the innocent women. Just like women who moan about men, it’s arguing against nature, which is silly if not in good humour. There’s a right and a wrong here and it’s very clear which is the route to success.
Secondary Education has always been traditionally full of more socialist thinkers. That’s where it started. Then outwards it spread to all the other sectors of public influence. The TV’s, movie and pop world carry blame since they are the ones who’ve had the biggest megaphones to spread the nonsense to impressionable minds. It is quoters that have spread the lies and pushed talented men out.
Bless Nigel Farage! He was unsackable, like Trump. That’s the key.
Look at the types from the city imported onto TV as a representative of women’s ‘rights’. I worked for a very short time in canary wharf. She’s not representative of the clientele. TV doesn’t care much.
What do people call sexist? Everybody’s sexist. If she thinks Farage sets a bad example to his daughters she hasn’t met my Dad! She’d faint. If you grow up with it you see it for what it is.
Always choose quality over “equality”. Always choose truth over lies.
Act as you wish, according to your principles. Your enemies will always complain, no matter what you do, because it is your very existence that they truly oppose. As the old saying goes, tell the truth and shame the devil!
For constructive fun, have the SJWs watch the 1947 movie, Gentleman’s Agreement, starring Gregory Peck as a press reporter that goes underground, masquerading as a Jew to get an inside perspective on anti-semitism. Such prejudice he finds allright, including among many that themselves don’t seem to realize they are so prejudiced.
All the characters are white.
So, where’s the “white privilege”????
Why/how did the objects of prejudice those generations ago since become social equals–without the overt need for SJW activism???
SJW’s have a very hard time processing that…
Arthur Jensen addressed this issue in his book, “Bias In Mental Testing”.
“..I therefore put most stock in the largest, most representative sample ever tested in a single study on a group IQ test. The sample consisted of all children (excluding only the deaf and blind) in the age range 10 1/2 to 11 1/2 living in Scotland in 1932—a total N of 87,000 (Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1933). The sex difference in mean IQs was not statistically significant, even with this enormous N, but the sex difference in standard deviations (about 1 IQ point difference) was highly significant, being about 12 times larger than its standard error. Random samples of 500 children of each sex were drawn from this total age group of Scottish children, to be individually tested on the Stanford-Binet. Again, there was no sex difference in mean IQ, but there was a larger (about 1 IQ point) standard deviation for boys.
The sex difference in variability of general intelligence is most likely a real phenomenon, although the evidence apparently still leaves room for somewhat differing interpretations (e.g., Kuznets & McNemar, 1940; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, pp. 114-120; Lehrke, 1978).”
So while on the AVERAGE, males and females perform about the same, thanks to that larger deviation in male performance, the higher the IQ cutoff, the greater the proportion of males to females. Of course that would ALSO work in reverse-
the lower the cutoff below the average, the larger the proportion of males to females BELOW that cutoff.
I presume it takes a certain minimum of intelligence to get a PhD in Math or Physics. That will NATURALLY result in a preponderance of males. The only way to offset this, as you pointed out, is to ACTIVELY discriminate against better performing white ( or Asian) males , and ACTIVELY discriminate in favor of more poorly performing non white , non Asian females. That active discrimination is sure to create discord, and social problems greater than the “problem” trying to be corrected.
Ask the Social Justice Warriors to do this.
When a position becomes vacant take all the applicants names off the application forms and change them into numbers.
With each number list the qualifications for the job.
Draw up a list based on the qualifications and see which numbers fit the bill more or less.
This may be a way to make sure the best persons gets selected for the job interviews can come at that point with the sex or gender of the top applicants becoming evident when they actually turn up . Most employers cannot say “Oh, you are the wrong sex” without being sexist, except in certain circumstances which I leave to the imagination. I hope this is politically correct?
This may be a way to make sure the best persons gets selected for the job. Interviews can come at that point with the sex or gender of the top applicants becoming evident when they actually turn up . Most employers cannot say “Oh, you are the wrong sex” without being sexist, except in certain circumstances which I leave to the imagination. I hope this is politically correct?
Correction of full stop/period. Sorry
As it has always been, the best test of discrimination is to reverse the roles and see if that changes your view on the matter.
As an example: women only clubs. Is this OK?
Only if you can also accept men only clubs. If men only clubs are bad and not allowed because they are sexist, then the exact same applies to women only clubs.
Exchange men/women for black/white, or muslim/christian, or gay/straight, or [insert the cause de jour and its compliment here]
Majority vs minority is immaterial if your true goal is equality – but of course, we already know this isn’t so because females marginally outnumber males in most western nations (who are the worst, of course), yet claiming minority status as a male is virtually impossible even when you point this out.
I am perfectly happy to have females around who are STEM oriented. The problem though is that if you are STEM oriented they have to demonstrate it. This is not just for females. MEN have to demonstrate that they can handle themselves in the field also. Men who can’t handle it might be able to blend into the background a little easier. Only just though.
In general, STEM folks have something just a little wrong with them. Men are more likely to have this wrongness.