Thursday, September 30, 2010


“a woman’s choice of less time at the office and more time at home with family is not considered an opportunity but a societal problem calling for a government solution”

George Will has a recent column up on gender politics. He has a few stats in it that might be interesting to readers:
  • Women live five years longer than men.
  • Female unemployment rate is significantly lower than men.
  • Women receive more high-school diplomas, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and now Ph.D.s.
  • Women were 49.7 percent of the workforce in August.
  • Young, unmarried, and childless urban women earn 8 percent more than similarly situated males.
The Democrat's response to this information? A bill that allows people to sue for being paid less than others in their job. 29 new offices to help women do better in America. A promise by the Obama administration "to litigate, regulate, and legislate the nation’s universities until women obtain half of all academic degrees in science and technology and hold half the faculty positions in those areas," according to National Journal.

George Will explains their push:
Although women receive more B.A.s, M.A.s, and Ph.D.s than men in biology and biomedical sciences, not enough women want what the administration wants them to want. There are fewer women choosing to enter many science and engineering programs than the administration wishes, and it assumes that the reason is discrimination against women. To which Furchtgott-Roth replies: Anti-women discrimination even at women’s colleges?

At Bryn Mawr, 4 percent of 2010 graduates majored in chemistry, 2 percent in computer science. At Smith, half of 1 percent were physics majors; 1.4 percent majored in computer science. In 2009 at Barnard, one third of 1 percent majored in physics and astronomy.
Who is this Diane Furchtgott-Roth Will quotes? He describes her as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former chief economist at the Department of Labor and author of How Obama's Gender Policies Undermine America. She points out that the Obama administration thinks that the only reason women could possibly not be taking careers in certain areas as much as men is that someone is stopping them from doing so.

Mind you there's no actual evidence of this, but you have to remember leftist Lawrence Summers who was thrown out of his position as President of Harvard for suggesting mildly that in addition to other factors people consider the possibility that women just might not be as interested in some fields as men. That cannot be considered, women are not just equal to men under law but equivalent to men, that they are differently shaped but identical if not superior.

Anything men can do, women can do better and the only reason this doesn't play out in life is the brutal, oppressive phallocracy which discriminates against women and forces them to wear uncomfortable clothing designed by gay men.

Even NASA is getting into the act. Having already stated that the space exploration agency's goal is now to make Muslims feel better about themselves when it comes to science, they are looking into how to make women get into sciences more. George Will writes: is not surprising that it has big ideas about how every university should have gender-parity apparatchiks to meet “weekly with the university president, provost, vice president, and deans,” the agency says, and fan out through the institution’s departments, labs, and other learning centers to determine whether “environments” are conducive to women.
What happens to the quality of science and education when you do this? The same thing that's happened to every other field in which social engineering and gender quotas have driven policy rather than the task at hand. Lower quality, poorer outcomes, and weakened standards.

Never fear though. When that happens, another government program will be put in place to fix the damage the previous one caused. And on and on. Unless we put a stop to it now.

1 comment: