I’ve Put The Breakables In Storage
Noah Carl ponders wokeness and women:
So, why would the influx of women into academia have contributed to its leftward shift, and to the rise of woke activism in particular? As the psychologist Cory Clark notes, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men, and consistently more supportive of censorship. Compared to men, they’re more likely to say: that hate speech is violence; that it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker; that controversial scientific findings should be censored; that people need to be more careful about the language they use; and that it should be illegal to say offensive things about minorities…
Women are disproportionately represented in Grievance Studies (i.e., disciplines like Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory), which are often little more than a vehicle for left-wing activism… Almost 80% of bachelor’s degrees in “Ethnic, Gender, and Cultural Studies” are awarded to women… [Academia’s left-wing skew] appears to be greater among female academics than among male ones. In a 2016 paper, Mitchell Langbert and colleagues analysed voter registration data on approximately 4,000 US academics. As the table below indicates, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was “only” 9:1 among men, but it was almost 25:1 among women.
Thanks to Mark Horowitz and colleagues, we also have detailed surveys from two of the most left-leaning disciplines: sociology and anthropology. The table below shows the proportion of male versus female sociologists (from a sample of 479) who agreed and disagreed with various items. Compared to men, women were more likely to say that “Sociology should be both a scientific and moral enterprise,” and that “Sociology should analyse and transcend oppression.” They were less likely to say that “More political conservatives would benefit [the] discipline,” and that “Advocacy and research should be separate for objectivity.”
Needless to say, there are links and charts aplenty.
Update, via the comments, which you’re reading of course:
Some ladies of the left aren’t happy about Mr Carl’s article. Apparently, he could only have written it because he’s “intimidated by intelligent women.” At least, according to a woman who seemingly didn’t find it necessary to read the piece that she’s dismissing, or to rebut any of its particulars, even in passing. As intelligent women do, of course. I’ve yet to see a substantive reply. So far, there’s been lots of glib, self-flattering toss about how noticing certain things can only be explained by a fear of women, or a hatred of them, some rather dishonest attempts at reputational sabotage, and rumblings about the alleged “fragility” of the “straight white male.”
There’s something almost funny about woke ladies getting all pissy and indignant about tables of statistics and things that one might reasonably infer from them, not least about woke ladies, and then behaving in precisely the kinds of ways that the article they dislike suggests is quite common among woke ladies.
Update 2:
It is, I think, odd how Ms Woods, our New Statesman and Guardian contributor, a woman who clearly wants us to know how terribly clever she is, doesn’t address anything – anything at all – in the article that so offends her. Instead, she resorts to glib dismissal, as if the evidence presented, all of it, were somehow irrelevant, while assigning cartoonish motives to the man who compiled it. Did anyone here read Mr Carl’s article and think, “Gosh, that sounds very emotional and motivated by a fear or hatred of women”?
Likewise, Ms Parkinson, who declares her pronouns and wishes us to know how terribly clever she is, indulges in the same glib and self-satisfied dismissal while carefully avoiding any attempt to address any of the particulars that she apparently finds objectionable. And so, we get another accusation of emotional motives for which no evidence is presented, as if that were sufficient, a job well done. But which party sounds more irrational and prejudiced, more emotionally agitated by facts and tables of statistics? And more dismissive of the other sex, with its “straight white male fragility”?
Again, lefties project.
pst314 – Is the term you’re looking for “argumentum ab auctoritate” (argument from authority)? It is — and was in the Middle Ages too — one of the enumerated logical fallacies, along with argumentum ad hominem, petitio principii, and so on. Never the foundation of research in Medieval universities! Their interest in authorities was in preserving their record, reconciling their contradictions, or just noting them when not reconcilable. They were training a clerisy, whose great task was to bring order to a heap of accumulated knowledge, turning it into a discipline, a body of knowledge capable of being taught. Their research, accordingly, was into foundations and fixed principles.
Finding out by experiment was left to practitioners in the field. Of course, some professors were practitioners themselves, and even among those who were not, an awareness of up-to-date experiment circulated. It circulated among the students too. It wasn’t made a part of course-work simply because cutting-edge experiment, like the edge of most things, is inherently unstable. If time firms it up, it can be added to the curriculum then.
And of course, this is just how the Medieval system was supposed to work, and pretty often did work; but a close reading of the history turns up the expected plenty of abuses, blunders, wanderings-off, and what not. Which is why History is more entertaining than this post, which here ends.
Baceseras: That is an excellent term, but it does not ring any bells. Considering how long ago I read about this, maybe what I read was inaccurate as well as my memory. Oh well.
Thank you very much for responding at such length.
Some ladies of the left aren’t happy about Mr Carl’s article.
Apparently, he could only have written it because he’s “intimidated by intelligent women.” At least, according to a woman who seemingly didn’t find it necessary to read the piece that she’s dismissing, or to rebut any of its particulars, even in passing. As intelligent women do, of course. I’ve yet to see a substantive reply. So far, there’s been lots of glib, self-flattering toss about how noticing certain things can only be explained by a fear of women, or a hatred of them, some rather dishonest attempts at reputational sabotage, and rumblings about the alleged “fragility” of the “straight white male.”
There’s something almost funny about woke ladies getting all pissy and indignant about tables of statistics and things one might reasonably infer from them, not least about woke ladies, and then behaving in precisely the kinds of ways that the article they dislike suggests is quite common among woke ladies.
There’s something almost funny about woke ladies getting all pissy and indignant about tables of statistics and things one might reasonably infer from them…
Note that she’s with the far-left New Statesman. Sooner or later she and her male comrades would happily declare such research to be CrimeThink.
That women are more likely to believe these things is different than saying most women believe them. That’s why article like this drive me bonkers.
That women are more likely to believe these things is different than saying most women believe them.
also:
humorous IQ bell curves from Charles Murray (original source unknown):
And again:
And yet again (NOT from Charles Murray):
Hopefully that fixes the italics.
Note that she’s with the far-left New Statesman.
Well, it’s odd how Ms Woods, our New Statesman and Guardian contributor, a woman who clearly wants us to know how terribly clever she is, doesn’t address anything – anything at all – in the article that so offends her. Instead, she resorts to glib dismissal, as if the evidence presented, all of it, were somehow irrelevant, while assigning cartoonish motives to the man who compiled it. Did anyone here read Mr Carl’s article and think, “Gosh, that sounds very emotional and motivated by a fear or hatred of women”?
Likewise, Ms Parkinson, who declares her pronouns and wishes us to know how terribly clever she is, indulges in the same glib and self-satisfied dismissal while carefully avoiding any attempt to address any of the particulars that she apparently finds objectionable. And so, we get another accusation of emotional motives for which no evidence is presented, as if that were sufficient, a job well done. But which party sounds more irrational and prejudiced, more emotionally agitated by facts and tables of statistics? And more dismissive of the other sex, with its “straight white male fragility”?
Again, lefties project.
Hopefully that fixes the italics.
😨 Did I screw that up and not even notice???
Did I screw that up and not even notice???
Yes.
Yes you did.
[ Peers over spectacles. ]
[ Sense of shame intensifies ]
Keep perfectly still.
The tattooing won’t take long.
[ Peeks in door ]
Has David put away the needle?
Excuse me a moment, I must visit an ATM. We’ve run out of dollar bills.
If you know where to find an ATM that dispenses $1 bills, please tell us. I don’t know of any that will provide a denomination smaller than $20 — which is utterly useless if you need cash to buy something from a vending machine. And that is the only thing I ever use cash for nowadays.
We live in a complex society and economy that took thousands of years to evolve. But dolts who cannot balance their checkbook or change a tire think they can make sweeping changes and it will just work out: close all nuke plants, stop fracking, ban straws, new pronouns, open borders, unlimited money printing, etc. Oh, don’t worry, we have good intentions…
I have a slightly different interpretation of this. The dolts consider themselves part of an “elite” that is entitled to rule the rest of us. A part of this, they believe that they have a monopoly on agency. They are the only ones who can think, make decisions, and act. Non-elite people are cattle. This means that members of the elite can make sweeping policy changes, and the rest of us will stolidly continue behaving in exactly the same ways as before, unless the new policies force us to change.
In short, we can be herded. Our behavior is predictable, so they can make us do what they want. But that’s not how actual humans behave. We notice changes and react to them in ways that the elite does not intend or expect.
A classic example is toilets. Before 1992, toilets in the USA typically used 2.5-3.6 gallons of water per flush. The EPA decided that this was too much, and decreed that future toilets would not be permitted to use more than 1.6 gallons. This would save a lot of water, because people would be oblivious to the change, and would mindlessly continue using their toilets in exactly the same way. But that’s not what happened. We noticed that the new toilets were terrible and clogged very easily. So we adapted by using two or three flushes where we previously used one. And the water consumption went up.
Behavioral economics is littered with examples like this, where people noticed the hamhanded policy changes and adapted to them in ways that often completely defeated the purpose of the change. If the elites were actually smarter and wiser than the rest of us, they would have realized by now that trying to herd people like cattle doesn’t work. But that would require them to stop believing in their own inherent superiority, and then they would have no justification for trying to rule the rest of us. That’s unthinkable. So they just keep on making the same mistake over and over again.
We noticed that the new toilets were terrible and clogged very easily. So we adapted by using two or three flushes
To be fair, they’ve gotten much better in the last 30 years. The low-flows I bought 3 years ago work better than the standard ones they replaced.
The low-flow shower heads are another matter.
But that would require them to stop believing in their own inherent superiority, and then they would have no justification for trying to rule the rest of us.
How else can they achieve the Bladerunner future that they lust for?
But dolts who cannot balance their checkbook or change a tire think they can make sweeping changes and it will just work out
Isaac Asimov? 😀