How can the New York Times ("all the news that's FIT to print") run an off-the-wall biased article arguing that Title IX should not be used to correct gender bias in education (except in athletics, where it's too late to take it back)?
John Tierney's tirade against the possible use of Title IX as a tool for correcting the most flagrant cases of bias against women in science education rests on these points:
1. Forcing men to share resources with women would "hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women" (presumably because of backlash).
2. Women aren't discriminated against in the sciences anyway. If they pursue some fields in smaller numbers than men, it's because they just don't like science (or maybe they aren't any good at it, or maybe they'd rather be stay-at-home moms so they can pursue their biological calling or maybe they just like low-paying jobs like secretary and grade school teacher that much more).
3. The reason they're not interested in the prestigious fields of physics and engineering is that, at a young age, they are "better rounded."
4. Giving women legal and institutional support in their bid for political, educational, and employment equality "infantilizes women."
Oh, and Tierney quotes Christina Hoff Sommers.
I bet Female Science Prof has something to say about this! Yep, she does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
How can the New York Times ("all the news that's FIT to print") run an off-the-wall biased article arguing that Title IX should not be used to correct gender bias in education (except in athletics, where it's too late to take it back)?
Well, how did the New York Times take a terrible op-ed columnist and turn him into a truly atrocious and completely unqualified science journalist?
We also get a fluff piece on EO Wilson, too, this week. If I hadn't decided quite a while ago that the science reporting in the New York Times was just terrible, I might be surprised and disappointed.
Post a Comment