"Academics have a professional responsibility to criticize work that is poorly reasoned, methodologically unsound, or untethered from objective reality."
Exactly.
There has also been a move towards not considering objective reality as a priority or of value.
I am not sure it is the women dominating or the fact that different standards are being applied to those who are women, as you point out. I was under the impression that the sample Clark had was not representative.
At any rate this makes no sense. If a result is true, it doesn't matter who found it. Ditto if it's not.
I don't think wokeism, which is what this is, is explicitly feminized. In no profit the men are just as guilty as the women. I think academia has undergone group think, and I can think of instances during my lifetimes where the cancelation was very male. Think Toby Keith got his feelings butt hurt by the Dixie Chick's, burned their CDs, and all the men who followed. McCarthyism, led by men. Woke ism is the other side of the coin in my opinion and men do it just as much. Especially, you know, those who think they are women. To other women. The sad thing is that in that first list, the issues about marriage, child rearing, etc. are real issues feminism addresses but now they have been lumped in with stupid shit.
It’s not just sisterhood in academia, this “sisterhood” concept has made its way into corporate America - possibly traditionally male-led industries. My feedback on a regulatory document was virtually identical to a male colleague’s feedback. Yet, the younger, junior-level female author accused me, a female with 25 years of experience, of intimidation and hostility while thanking the male colleague for his invaluable and constructive criticism.
Yet again, a male pundit confuses wokeism with feminism.
It may surprise you to learn that most women and most feminists do not subscribe to wokeism. Perhaps it is different in academia, but I'm not sure.
"distinctly female-typical prioritization of harm avoidance" Are you unaware this is a gross sexist stereotype, or do you proudly identify as sexist? There is a long history of activism by women in which women have risked their lives and lost their lives. Happened just recently in Minnesota, but goes back to Joan of Arc and before. But in your view, we're all just a bunch of simpering, quivering cowards. It seems to me that it's men who "prioritize harm avoidance" by spreading sexist stereotypes, libeling feminists, forcefully defending male privilege, casting doubt on women's rape accusations to help ensure access to rape, and otherwise acting to defend privilege and in fear of losing privilege and possibly suffering the HARM that may come to them when no privilege is guaranteed.
Is it really controversial that women tend to be more tactful than men, and more sensitive to emotional nuances? That men are more likely to be “on the spectrum”?
Auto insurance rates strongly suggest women are more cautious than men, at least as drivers.
It seems to me that “DEI hires”, female or male, will seek to protect the pseudo-scholarship they produce from criticism. In the particular case described here, it happens to be women; but this kind of behavior may actually be more common among so-called “Under-Represented Minorities”.
I don't think that reasonable safety procedures and social tact are the same as "harm avoidance." Although, that term is so general, it is probably meaningless.
It’s likely that evolution has programmed women to be more risk-averse than men.
For most of the long tenure of the human race on Earth, childbearing was so risky, women who took unnecessary additional risks would tend to leave few offspring behind.
One small point; it should be no concern that females at university outnumber males. The employment worlds of construction and most trades highly favor male applicants, so those jobs are less available (or even suitable, possibly) for females. The university presents the most viable way for females to find jobs.
Let me tell you of a personal experience 25 years ago. I'm mathematically incompetent, so I asked my stats whizz spouse to help me with a simple bivariate plot. He unfortunately died suddenly shortly before I submitted the paper (one that is still cited BTW, but not in the original place of submission). A reviewer claimed, as part of his rejection "so, now her husband's dead, who's gonna do her maths??"
This proposal is crazy.
"Academics have a professional responsibility to criticize work that is poorly reasoned, methodologically unsound, or untethered from objective reality."
Exactly.
There has also been a move towards not considering objective reality as a priority or of value.
I am not sure it is the women dominating or the fact that different standards are being applied to those who are women, as you point out. I was under the impression that the sample Clark had was not representative.
At any rate this makes no sense. If a result is true, it doesn't matter who found it. Ditto if it's not.
If this woman was taken seriously we are in worse trouble than I imagined.
And as a woman who values the unfettered search for truth I am embarrassed to my core by weak whiners like June Gruber.
We must do better.
I don't think wokeism, which is what this is, is explicitly feminized. In no profit the men are just as guilty as the women. I think academia has undergone group think, and I can think of instances during my lifetimes where the cancelation was very male. Think Toby Keith got his feelings butt hurt by the Dixie Chick's, burned their CDs, and all the men who followed. McCarthyism, led by men. Woke ism is the other side of the coin in my opinion and men do it just as much. Especially, you know, those who think they are women. To other women. The sad thing is that in that first list, the issues about marriage, child rearing, etc. are real issues feminism addresses but now they have been lumped in with stupid shit.
It’s not just sisterhood in academia, this “sisterhood” concept has made its way into corporate America - possibly traditionally male-led industries. My feedback on a regulatory document was virtually identical to a male colleague’s feedback. Yet, the younger, junior-level female author accused me, a female with 25 years of experience, of intimidation and hostility while thanking the male colleague for his invaluable and constructive criticism.
Go figure.
Yet again, a male pundit confuses wokeism with feminism.
It may surprise you to learn that most women and most feminists do not subscribe to wokeism. Perhaps it is different in academia, but I'm not sure.
"distinctly female-typical prioritization of harm avoidance" Are you unaware this is a gross sexist stereotype, or do you proudly identify as sexist? There is a long history of activism by women in which women have risked their lives and lost their lives. Happened just recently in Minnesota, but goes back to Joan of Arc and before. But in your view, we're all just a bunch of simpering, quivering cowards. It seems to me that it's men who "prioritize harm avoidance" by spreading sexist stereotypes, libeling feminists, forcefully defending male privilege, casting doubt on women's rape accusations to help ensure access to rape, and otherwise acting to defend privilege and in fear of losing privilege and possibly suffering the HARM that may come to them when no privilege is guaranteed.
Is it really controversial that women tend to be more tactful than men, and more sensitive to emotional nuances? That men are more likely to be “on the spectrum”?
Auto insurance rates strongly suggest women are more cautious than men, at least as drivers.
It seems to me that “DEI hires”, female or male, will seek to protect the pseudo-scholarship they produce from criticism. In the particular case described here, it happens to be women; but this kind of behavior may actually be more common among so-called “Under-Represented Minorities”.
I don't think that reasonable safety procedures and social tact are the same as "harm avoidance." Although, that term is so general, it is probably meaningless.
It’s likely that evolution has programmed women to be more risk-averse than men.
For most of the long tenure of the human race on Earth, childbearing was so risky, women who took unnecessary additional risks would tend to leave few offspring behind.
I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the author of this piece and his vast stereotyping using negative language.
Well done, Dr. Nuzzo. Feminized institutions can't function, and feminized societies can't fight.
One small point; it should be no concern that females at university outnumber males. The employment worlds of construction and most trades highly favor male applicants, so those jobs are less available (or even suitable, possibly) for females. The university presents the most viable way for females to find jobs.
Let me tell you of a personal experience 25 years ago. I'm mathematically incompetent, so I asked my stats whizz spouse to help me with a simple bivariate plot. He unfortunately died suddenly shortly before I submitted the paper (one that is still cited BTW, but not in the original place of submission). A reviewer claimed, as part of his rejection "so, now her husband's dead, who's gonna do her maths??"
Scholarly harassment? No such term then.