The Feminisation of Academia & Its Consequences

[Bucktee]

The video sure sounds like whining that academics no longer protects men from competition from women.

At what point in the video do you pull this from?

The video is not about competition between men and women in academia and it's not about affirmative action.

The video is not about academic achievement rankings between men and women.

Tell us you based all of your posts in this thread on the title of the video instead of its contents, without telling us.

 

[Bucktee]

And the complaints about "feminization" sounds more than a bit incely.

The narrator is a woman and the author of the research is a woman.

I don't think anything about the video suggests they're incels. They're both attractive and seemingly intelligent women; I don't think they'd have any trouble obtaining sex from men, or women.

But by all means, clarify how you reached this conclusion.

Your response demonstrates the very problem outlined in the video. It shows precisely why it is important that the video was made by a woman and the research was conducted by another woman... because if a man did so, he would be attacked and accused of all kind of falsehoods.

Just look at all the bold smears that leftists have made about my personal life in this thread, which have nothing to do with the video being discussed. Their intention is to censor, silence, and discredit views that they deem morally offensive, regardless of the data.... even if that data is benign in and of itself.

They have me feeling like Galileo out here.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Is that a response to my comment or did you just want to use my post as a launching point for your soapbox?

Some of each. I replied to this comment:

Statistically, women do better in academics than men. ...

This is an opinion rather than a fact, because statistical information can be selectively chosen to prove your statement both true and false. If all communication was precise, explicit and complete, we would need a lot fewer lawyers.

How success in academics is measured is the variable. Statistics can verify that a majority of new college graduates are female, or that the female group scored X% higher marks on the standardized and/ or the subjective portion of marks allotted by teachers.

The begged question is "what is the primary goal of obtaining a college diploma?". If one's answer is 'To get higher marks than most or all of the male students', 'to become an expert in my chosen field of study', or 'to be able to place letters after my name on a resume', women are doing better than men in academics. Many of them have degrees in the Humanities/ Social Sciences discipline, which traditionally is useful in obtaining employment paid on a scale well below the National mean.

If the primary goal is to have significantly higher career earnings than a high school graduate, or as a prerequisite for consideration for positions which pay above the mean, it could be either of those two genders for current or recent data, but historically, men win this one by a huge margin.

Given the earning potential in certain skilled trades, (plumber, electrician, etc.), it's likely that the true average, (ie: total income divided by the head count), earnings for men without a college degree are much higher than their female counterparts.

If the statistical statement is based solely on current data, the results could be explained by the prior education of both biological gender groups. The men in this statistic would have been receiving a 'feminized' education prior to the comparison date. The statistical difference could be explained by 'women are better at thinking like women than most men are'. It can also mean that the current crop of young men are sad sacks when compared to their predecessors.

 

[Valcazar]

They retracted one of their own studies in 2020. A sign of good scholarship.

If you like.

No need for line-by-line.

What conclusion was drawn in the video that you found to be too broad, entirely incorrect, or just offensive to your sentiments?

Not from the video, but from their original Quillette piece.

Sex and the Academy

The inclusion of women in higher education is a great achievement for Western liberal societies. How is this changing academic culture?

quillette.com

" Consequently, men are more tolerant of controversial and potentially offensive scientific findings being pursued, disseminated, and discussed, and women are more willing to obstruct or suppress science perceived to be potentially harmful or offensive. Put more simply, men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable. "

Far too overbroad, even with the cherry-picked data they chose to use.

(I'm keeping it simple, obviously.)

Your summation of the video's summation is even more strident, of course, which is why I went to the original source.

As the data in the video demonstrates, it's a common position taken by those that take offense to "batshit" research.

LOL.

I'm glad we've established that Cory et al. should be able to continue their scientific endeavours.

Even white nationalists like Bo can do science, even if one should look hard at their biases when examining their work.

Elaborate.

It is very rare that the numbers are batshit in the work if it is even minimally competent.
It's often the conclusions, the massaging for statistical fit, the lack of appreciation for the replicability crisis, and the PR that is where all the batshit lies.

 

[Bucktee]

"Consequently, men are more tolerant of controversial and potentially offensive scientific findings being pursued, disseminated, and discussed, and women are more willing to obstruct or suppress science perceived to be potentially harmful or offensive. Put more simply, men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable. "

Far too overbroad, even with the cherry-picked data they chose to use.

(I'm keeping it simple, obviously.)

Your summation of the video's summation is even more strident, of course, which is why I went to the original source.

My bullet point summation was also an attempt to keep the findings simple for easy consumption.

I think the surveys referenced paint a fairly good picture that supports the authors' conclusions. Yes, they're necessarily broad. The authors outlined general tendencies between men and women in academia.

Even white nationalists like Bo can do science, even if one should look hard at their biases when examining their work.

You've made a claim about Bo which I have no knowledge about and I admit, I doubt it's true.

He is a PhD in Social Psychology.

What is relevant is whether there is a biases in the work being discussed here.

You say the data is cherry-picked. What sources would you use instead and do you think the results would be vastly different using them?

Do you think that men and women approach academia the same way?

As an external observer, the researcher's conclusions also seem to align with well-established scientific findings that men are interested in things and women are interested in people.

It is very rare that the numbers are batshit in the work if it is even minimally competent.
It's often the conclusions, the massaging for statistical fit, the lack of appreciation for the replicability crisis, and the PR that is where all the batshit lies.

The peer reviewed research conducted by these scholars is open to be challenged by others in the field.

 

[mitchell76]

Since this got moved to the Politics section, she did a response this morning.

https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1905984579975995789

Serious question. I think she is hot, but do you find her too irritating to be with?

There was a humorous post on ISG of a session with a Montreal escort from VOG who irritated this customer by talking about American politics for the first half of the session, particularly her dislike of some person in American politics. The reviewer found this irritating and gave her a bad score.

The lady in the video says there is a place for politics in evaluating a dating partner. Should politics be off the agenda in the discussion part of the commercial sex session?

She is hot, but I guess she's not a Trump fan......LMAO

 

[mitchell76]

Thinking with the big head, not a chance. She's too loud, too inarticulate, and I think her batshit crazy episodes happen all the time.

View attachment 422463

I finally got what you did there. Very smart. I was googling to see what type of pill this was. Nothing came up. Then it occured to me, that she is in fact a drama queen AKA Dramaquine.....LMAO

 

[Valcazar]

My bullet point summation was also an attempt to keep the findings simple for easy consumption.

Fair enough.
And it over-broadened the findings even more than their own paper.

I think the surveys referenced paint a fairly good picture that supports the authors' conclusions. Yes, they're necessarily broad. The authors outlined general tendencies between men and women in academia.

And we disagree about how well the studies they chose support their assertions.
(Let alone their explanation, which I'm not getting into.)

You've made a claim about Bo which I have no knowledge about and I admit, I doubt it's true.

Why would you argue with him about it?

What is relevant is whether there is a biases in the work being discussed here.

I strongly suspect it does bias his selection and interpretation of these studies, but he didn't do them so it shouldn't be biasing the data itself.

You say the data is cherry-picked. What sources would you use instead and do you think the results would be vastly different using them?

I am not about to do a lit-search here.
Yes, given this was a random article they posted on Quillette, I am pretty confident they grabbed a handful of studies they felt supported their position.
I have no idea what would happen with a wider and more rigorous analysis.

Do you think that men and women approach academia the same way?

Almost certainly not, due to very different formative experiences in a culture that is far from monolithic.
Even comparing results of surveys like this from 2017 and 2024 is likely to produce different results in both genders due to the different political environment.

As an external observer, the researcher's conclusions also seem to align with well-established scientific findings that men are interested in things and women are interested in people.

If you like.

The peer reviewed research conducted by these scholars is open to be challenged by others in the field.

And I am sure it has been.
As I said, the individual studies they chose are very unlikely to have false data.

 

[Bucktee]

Why would you argue with him about it?

View attachment 422780

This screenshot does not support your claim.

Are you not a [Canadian] nationalist?

If you told me that you're a [Canadian] nationalist and your ethnicity is White, would it be reasonable for me to call you a White Nationalist?

I have no idea what would happen with a wider and more rigorous analysis.

Let's say that a "wider and more rigorous analysis" [however you choose to define that] is conducted in the future and the same conclusions are reached by a new set of female scientists.

Would you still call it batshit crazy?

Mind you, you have yet to disclose precisely what you think is crazy about the present conclusion. What makes it crazy? You've already stated that men and women approach academia differently [due to "culture and formative experiences and political environments"].

In your worldview, is it wrong for men and women to differ from each other on broad scales?

Almost certainly not, due to very different formative experiences in a culture that is far from monolithic.
Even comparing results of surveys like this from 2017 and 2024 is likely to produce different results in both genders due to the different political environment.

Results may differ in a matter of degrees but you won't get a reversal between the sexes.

Findings like these aren't new and have been replicated cross-culturally.

 

[onomatopoeia]

I finally got what you did there. Very smart. I was googling to see what type of pill this was. Nothing came up. Then it occured to me, that she is in fact a drama queen AKA Dramaquine.....LMAO

If it was a real pill bottle, rather than an altered image, the text of 'DRAMAQUINE' would have been curved. I can't do that with MS Paint.

 

[Valcazar]

This screenshot does not support your claim.

Are you not a [Canadian] nationalist?

If you told me that you're a [Canadian] nationalist and your ethnicity is White, would it be reasonable for me to call you a White Nationalist?

It wouldn't.
But then I don't post all kinds of white nationalist things like Bo.

It's fine.
You don't have to care one way or the other, since you seem to not know of him outside this one study.

Let's say that a "wider and more rigorous analysis" [however you choose to define that] is conducted in the future and the same conclusions are reached by a new set of female scientists.

Would you still call it batshit crazy?

Maybe.
It would depend on what they found, what conclusions they made from the data they found, how they presented it, and so on.
It's not something I'm particularly worried about.

Mind you, you have yet to disclose precisely what you think is crazy about the present conclusion. What makes it crazy? You've already stated that men and women approach academia differently [due to "culture and formative experiences and political environments"].

Let's start simple - broad generalizations to make a political point aren't something I take very seriously.
This is what you get when you have an agenda driving your analysis of the science.
So yeah, "Men are more interested in truth because evolution" isn't a statement that I'm going to take too seriously.

When you have studies showing that scholars who are men are asked to assign points to the importance of five academic priorities they prioritize them in this order (on average):

1. Advancing Knowledge
2. Academic Rigor
3. Academic Freedom
4. Social Justice
5. Emotional Wellbeing

But when you look at how women score those you get this order

1. Advancing Knowledge
2. Academic Rigor
3. Academic Freedom
4. Social Justice
5. Emotional Wellbeing

It doesn't incline me to think much of the sweeping statements made from it.

In your worldview, is it wrong for men and women to differ from each other on broad scales?

Not at all.

Results may differ in a matter of degrees but you won't get a reversal between the sexes.

That's a bold statement.
Why make it with no evidence?

Findings like these aren't new and have been replicated cross-culturally.

And I'm sure you think that means they are inherent.

 

[Bucktee]

Let's start simple - broad generalizations to make a political point aren't something I take very seriously.
This is what you get when you have an agenda driving your analysis of the science.

What political point was being made in the video?

Sharing survey results that help to explain the observed ways that women participate in academia and the work environment is not political. In fact, careful consideration was made not to make any judgment [especially political] about it.

So yeah, "Men are more interested in truth because evolution" isn't a statement that I'm going to take too seriously.

If results show that men are indeed more interested in truth, across all cultures and time periods, what would you attribute that to other than biological differences stemming from evolution?

When you have studies showing that scholars who are men are asked to assign points to the importance of five academic priorities they prioritize them in this order (on average):

It doesn't incline me to think much of the sweeping statements made from it.

Men and women do prioritize those academic factors differently.

This should incline you to think harder about the general statements made from it.

Gendered Values in Higher Education

Across the past few years, universities have gone through enormous shifts in basic values. The emotional well-being of students matters these days as much as anything, including truth.

www.psychologytoday.com

https://researchers.one/articles/23.03.00001.pdf

That's a bold statement.
Why make it with no evidence?

Men are interested in things, women are interested in people. That's been a consistent theme in science and in social life.

Why play coy when inundated with abundant evidence everywhere you look?

And I'm sure you think that means they are inherent.

Correct.

If the results are replicated across all cultures what reason(s) would there be to think otherwise?

I also wanted to ask, are you someone that thinks men can become women through self-identity? In other words, are trans women, women?

Your answer may render this entire conversation moot.

 

[basketcase]

Some of each. I replied to this comment:



This is an opinion rather than a fact, because statistical information can be selectively chosen to prove your statement both true and false. If all communication was precise, explicit and complete, we would need a lot fewer lawyers.

How success in academics is measured is the variable. Statistics can verify that a majority of new college graduates are female, or that the female group scored X% higher marks on the standardized and/ or the subjective portion of marks allotted by teachers.

The begged question is "what is the primary goal of obtaining a college diploma?". If one's answer is 'To get higher marks than most or all of the male students', 'to become an expert in my chosen field of study', or 'to be able to place letters after my name on a resume', women are doing better than men in academics. Many of them have degrees in the Humanities/ Social Sciences discipline, which traditionally is useful in obtaining employment paid on a scale well below the National mean.

If the primary goal is to have significantly higher career earnings than a high school graduate, or as a prerequisite for consideration for positions which pay above the mean, it could be either of those two genders for current or recent data, but historically, men win this one by a huge margin.

Given the earning potential in certain skilled trades, (plumber, electrician, etc.), it's likely that the true average, (ie: total income divided by the head count), earnings for men without a college degree are much higher than their female counterparts.

If the statistical statement is based solely on current data, the results could be explained by the prior education of both biological gender groups. The men in this statistic would have been receiving a 'feminized' education prior to the comparison date. The statistical difference could be explained by 'women are better at thinking like women than most men are'. It can also mean that the current crop of young men are sad sacks when compared to their predecessors.

As I said, women have done better than men on average and despite the insinuations of the OP's video, it is not because of feminists changing the system to benefit women.

The following are my opinions and they are based on at least as much information as yours.

The educational system hasn't really changed much in the last 100 years in the way things are being taught. It is still a system that benefits people who can sit quietly and play the game. The main factor that has changed is women aren't prevented or discouraged from being a part of it. Even when I was in school, there were math/science teachers who clearly felt that it was too hard for girls.

Boys clearly have a harder time with extremely structured classrooms at younger ages. This is likely to do with energy levels but also societal norms. Girls generally become more socially capable at younger ages than boys so are far less likely to de disruptive in class or get in trouble. These skills carry on and boys who fall behind need to work harder to catch up. Again, this has changed little since public education began. Maybe the end of corporal punishment took away the fear that used to keep boys in line. And that slower psychological development often has boys not deciding on career goals until later (especially the academic sort) and therefore less likely to have put in the work.

The other thing that hasn't changed is the societal ideals that boys and girls are exposed to. From a young age, boys are shown success stories of athletes, combined with the childhood adoration of 'manly' jobs like firefighters and cops. To add, boys have been taught to look down on geeks and nerds. For girls, some of that adoration is for models/actresses/influencers but more and more so, they see successful women as role models.

Your science vs humanities comparison is a false dichotomy as greater and greater numbers of women have been entering the hard sciences and other than dealing with an elder generation that is still male dominated, have been doing extremely well. It's about access and encouragement, not any "feminization of education".

 

[basketcase]

...

Not from the video, but from their original Quillette piece.

Sex and the Academy

The inclusion of women in higher education is a great achievement for Western liberal societies. How is this changing academic culture?

quillette.com

...

The people complaining about feminization of academics look down on people who read the source data. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Bucktee]

As I said, women have done better than men on average and despite the insinuations of the OP's video, it is not because of feminists changing the system to benefit women.

The video is not about academic achievement between men and women, nor is it about changes to benefit women.

Where are you pulling this fictitious take from?

Let me spell it out for you since you've continuously missed the boat 3 pages deep into the discussion:

The video is about academic freedom and how the feminisation of academia stifles that freedom, which has ramifications for academic, social, and political life.