Monthly Archives: November 2012
In response to O’Reilly’s comment about “non-traditional” Americans deciding the election, Colbert put up a graphic showing what he thinks non-traditional America looks like . . .
An upper-middle class black man; a bi-racial woman who likely has only half African ancestry; and a white Spaniard who looks like Liev Schreiber. All of them wearing nice clothes, all obviously educated, with shining teeth and jobs that add to the tax coffers. In other words, not the people we mean when scholars of the Dark Enlightenment talk about non-white, non-traditional America.
The MSNBC poll is, of course, highly skewed. People most likely to submit a response to it are the people reading MSNBC outlets, i.e., Obama-supporters. And the article doesn’t even give us the population size of the poll. Even so, I think it captures a real trend: Obama is not a politician but a panacea. He’ll cure what ails ya.
Of course, the ailments in Peru are completely different from the ailments in Singapore, which are different from the ailments in Denmark (are there ailments there?). But that’s the whole point of a snake oil. Whatever the problem is–whatever you think is ‘wrong with the world’–Obama is the answer. You don’t even need to formulate the question. He stands for whatever you stand for, and against whatever you’re against.
As it does once or twice a year, the Chronicle of Higher Education has trotted out its favorite feminist talking point: the ‘gender gap’ in science and engineering fields:
There have been many efforts over the last three decades to draw more women into STEM fields. While impressive gains have been made in mathematics, statistics, biology, and chemistry, women are still far less likely than men to major in computer science and engineering. In addition, recent studies, like one published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, have demonstrated that there is still bias among both male and female scientists against female students.
In the Left worldview, bias only exists when women or minorities are ‘underrepresented’ in some arena or endeavor. Leftists rarely specify what ‘normal’ or ‘equal’ representation might look like, numerically speaking. In terms of gender, however, I presume equal representation would be 50/50. Otherwise, there’s clearly bias. Or, I should clarify, there’s clearly bias if the split is weighted toward men (white men, preferably).
Let’s look at some numbers. The following charts show us how many men and women earned a degree in a given field from 2009-2010. All data comes from the National Center for Education Statistics, a federal data-tracking agency.
The Equality Czars are correct that fewer women earn degrees in computer science and physics. But let’s put those numbers in perspective:
In the liberal arts, women outnumber men at the same levels as men outnumber women in STEM fields. But even in certain Science fields, we see the same inequality . . .
Even in a few ‘hard science’ fields, like biotechnology, women still outnumber men.
In terms of degrees granted, women far outnumber men in most fields. Indeed, across all fields, taken cumulatively, women outnumber men in all degree categories:
What these numbers tell us is that the Feminist Left will not rest until EVERY FIELD IS DOMINATED BY WOMEN. They don’t want equality. Where’s the Inequality Brigade when it comes to humanities fields and the academy as a whole? No, equality is not what they’re after. They attack inequality in STEM because STEM is the last academic arena still dominated by men. It’s the last intellectual fortress of masculinity. And the Feminist Left is storming it.
The reality is, there is very little discrimination or bias in STEM, and when it does exist (c.f., the article linked in the Chronicle piece), it is minor, subtle, and certainly can’t explain the ‘gender gaps’ above. Gender, of course, greatly determines the careers we seek and the degrees we pursue. If that’s not the case, then the Bias Battalion needs not only to explain why there are fewer women in computer science, but also why there are so many more women in Education and English.
Beneath the article about Professor Sanders’ report on affirmative action at UCLA, a commenter posted the following:
Part of me thinks the commenter is a troll; the post is just too funny to be earnest. However, another part of me knows it’s real. I’ve dealt with people who actually think this way. So, I’ll treat it as real, and, taking away the grandiose rhetoric, I’ll translate the demands:
1. Fire Professor Sanders for saying things that hurt our feelings. And stop professors from using math or science without first making sure that their conclusions fit our worldview.
2. Administrators, make us feel better about ourselves again. Tell us sweet lies about how smart we are.
3. Accept students based on their race, not their intellectual achievement. Then, when they get to campus, tell them sweet lies about how their phenotypes make everyone smarter.
4. Apropos Demand # 3, stop accepting students based on their intellectual achievement. Change your standards to accommodate people of color, who can’t compete intellectually with whites and East Asians.
5. Don’t just change your admissions standards; change your laws. Our phenotypes give us a right to take over institutions and countries built by whites.