Internet feminists are outraged after a scientific journal told a group of female researchers that their work on gender bias in academia was gender biased.
Two female evolutionary geneticists collaborated on the piece, which claimed that fewer women Ph.D. candidates were published by established scientific journals, leading them to believe, based on interviews with women across the scientific fields, that the publishing industry was biased against female scientists.
When they submitted their article to a journal that specializes in publishing research on diversity in the fields of science and medicine, a reviewer suggested that the women include a male voice in their study, just to show that they, themselves, were not coming at the issue from a position of gender bias.
[…]
The journal, PLOS, was forced to say they were sorry and retract the critique; they now claim, also, that they’ve placed the reviewer on leave until they can determine exactly what happened.
As the old joke (now banned as hate speech, no doubt) once put it:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One, but it’s not funny.
Bias against women in Canada is Largely in the past. While it was real 50 years ago, today it is imaginary self-pity. I remember a banker talking at my high school in the late 1960s saying women were hired as tellers and men were hired as management trainees. That was bias. If you are arguing percentage participation differnces of the sexes in occupations, that is imaginary self-pity.
true. I have often wondered why this stuff has recently reached a whole new fever pitch since so much progress has been made. Basically, the left and progressives have no other message. They keep it alive because they need it.
*
once you start setting up protections for “special” groups of people,
you cannot put the “human rights” toothpaste back in the tube.
this brave new world belongs to the pregnant, lefthanded, lesbian
pipefitters cooperative.
*
Feminism stopped being about achieving equality decades ago….. if it really ever was about that.
It’s now apparently about having the power and the right to be sexist against men. Just go on some ride-a-longs on domestic disputes or visit a family court if you want to see the unbalanced power that women already wield over men in our society. Some of them act viciously evil with this legal power, even emotionally abusing their own children JUST to feel the satisfaction of revenge against the father.
Their emotional reaction to the offered suggestion of including a male POV is pretty clear proof to me that their study about gender bias is probably dripping with gender bias.
muffintop meet beer belly
As a pipefitter I’m offended by your comment. As a male I find it mildly insightful. 🙂 As an employer of pipefitters I’ve never worked with or hired a female pipefitter; lesbian or not.
Equality movements are NEVER about true equality … they are all about GETTING EVEN. Feminist activists want to GET EVEN with men … which means PUNISHING men, deriding men, diminishing men … calling testosterone a “toxic” hormone (hey! it worked to demonize benign Co2).
And … the very second Gay Marriage is legalized by the SCOTUS … out comes the LAWSUIT FORCING a Christian Baker to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. That’s called “getting even”. That SHOULD BE labeled a HATE CRIME … by the Lesbian activists … not the Christian Baker (note: there have been -0- lawsuits aimed at Muslim Bakers who would also decline the opportunity to bake a lesbian-celebration cake). Equality to the LGBTQ-EIEIO’s means GETTING EVEN with Christian’s who refuse to “observe” and “celebrate” their sexual arrangements … their “LOVE”. Yeah, LOVE means suing the shitt out of everyone you HATE. LOVE means FORCING Christians not to just “accept” the legality of something they do not believe-in … but to actively participate in it in direct conflict with THEIR personal beliefs.
No, only men can have gender bias. Just like there is only one sort of person who can be racist, and that sort is identified by their race.
I have to call bull$it on this one:
“…they now claim, also, that they’ve placed the reviewer on leave until they can determine exactly what happened.”
That is not how the process works. A journal cannot put a reviewer on leave because reviewers do not work for the journal. When a paper is submitted to a journal, the editor contacts experts in the field and asks them to serve as referees/reviewers. Depending on the topic different experts are contacted. The reviewers then send their comments on the draft to the editor. Their anonymity is always protected, as such the submitting author never knows who the reviewer is.
The work of a reviewer is always voluntary and editors are careful not to abuse the reviewer’s time. Often journals have a clause that they will not contact the same reviewer twice in one year etc. The reviewers can always decline to serve and there are never any consequences for them. Neither there is a standard set of reviewers who always serve for a given journal. Those are all volunteers who agree to serve on per paper basis. So there is no way a reviewer can be put on leave.
None of this gender, forced acceptance of se*ual deviations to help destroy the family, politically correct speech throughout society, the whole gamut of societal everything upsidedowness, etc is about equality. It is about imposing a Frankfurt School of Marxist progressive life on western democracy citizens and destroying the family unit.
I am reading a book about how Lenin and his successor Stalin overturned the educational system and media information world of newspapers and cinema to further their communistic ideals. The one word used over and over again to describe the various aspects was “progressive”. What do we hear almost daily, yes, you guessed right, the word “progressive”.
arapoanga hardcopy
Not so fast Colonialista.
You forgot the gate keeping that goes on in publishing. There is a small group of people who are constantly called upon to review articles, in part, so that they can control what gets published. To think that the system is totally fair, that everything is on a volunteer basis, that everyone can be called upon equally to serve as a reviewer – well that just doesn’t happen.
I never said that things are fair, or everyone has an equal chance of being called to serve as a reviewer. Of course the editor has their own biases, and will choose people they think will represent some set of beliefs that often reflects editor’s beliefs. But they do not hire reviewers. They ask potential reviewers to volunteer on per paper basis. Hence the reviewer cannot be put on leave.
This is totalitarian conditioning.
Once the plebeians and surprisingly, the intellectualists, are conditioned to self-criticism and prostration to someone else’s criticism, they will welcome it when they come for them.
Yeah, dictatorship of the international socialist ruling class is just around the corner and you will submit.
Also, it is not true that the pool of reviewers tends to be small for high impact journals. In fact, these are almost always very large. Of course just because the pools of reviewers are large, it does not mean that they are diverse when it comes to opinions. A reviewer who decides to go against the groupthink risks a lot, and unless they are among the top scholars in the world (and even then) they may end up never publishing in that journal (and other related journals).
Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. You can’t change a light bulb, they are born that way, and I don’t want to hear any mansplaining otherwise.
So basically what you are saying in a rigged “unrigged” system they can put someone out to pasture.
Leave might not be the right word, but isn’t this worse than leave?
I think the Klingons referred to this as discommendation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYJmFOxNew0
“So basically what you are saying in a rigged “unrigged” system they can put someone out to pasture.”
Absolutely, to quote pastor Book: “They’ll come at you sideways. It’s how they think.” They see a clearly not PC review they typically do not show it to the author. They appologize for the delay and just ask someone else to referee. As for the unPC ref, they will likely never publish in that journal, and if the editor also referees grant applications or decides who to invite on a conference…
Having said that, when the article claims that a reviewer was put on leave I pause. It is written by someone who does not understand the process and the system and I wonder what else did they got wrong.
Ever so many years ago I had a friend who did his master’s thesis on “e-bias”, short hand for experimental or experimenter bias. Turns out it’s a real issue in the social sciences especially and that good studies have safeguards to minimize or eliminate it.
So, we have two female “evolutionary geneticists” submitting a “piece, which claimed that fewer women Ph.D. candidates were published by established scientific journals, leading them to believe, based on interviews with women across the scientific fields, that the publishing industry was biased against female scientists.”
Probably went something like this: Hey Mable, this evolutionary genetics crap is hard and frankly boring. Let’s go talk to some women about other things. In fact, let’s do interviews with women. Great idea Jean. We need a break. We could ask them if they’re being oppressed by da man.
Interviews, interviews by women with women who are having trouble getting published. So many variables including sample size, field of specialization, survey questions asked, etc.
We already know the conclusion from their interviews (the publishing industry is biased, etc) but I’d like to see the “piece”. Did it or did it not get published?
I mean who knows, maybe Arsenic really can replace Phosphorus in DNA.
It started when we let them vote, got worse when we let them into the workforce…and here we are.
“got worse when we let them into the workforce”
Actually got worse when a robot was programmed to make a better sammich.
I am the not messenger. I didn’t make up this joke. If I typed this joke – it’s my keyboards fault.
Q. Why are there female astronauts?
A. They weigh 90 lbs less than a dishwasher.
Q. What do feminist snipers use for camouflage?
A: Their armpits.
Ok and just to offend everybody:
I am conflicted about abortion. On one hand, I support killing babies, but on the other hand, I am opposed to giving women more choice.
feminists have created a bias that was almost gone. they have brought it back. I am sick of all the special interest groups.
A woman’s place is in the home and she should go there immediately after work.