The most obvious impact is that most topics of interest become about the well-being and interests of women as a group. Other groups whose ideological view of women is at an advantage are ignored. Since women are trapped in an ideological dimension of class/gender struggle under the prism of feminism, trying to crush the suggested oppressive group is a goal. Women have a very strong sense of self-righteousness and preservation, so it is quite obvious that they will make themselves as a group "the center of the universe".
I was a male postdoc in Academia. Applying for a job is almost impossible now, unless you are male grandfathered in professor. I have applied for several jobs to not often not even get an email, only for friends at the department say “sorry we put the job offer out again as not enough women applied”. Here in Australia you can discriminate based on sex in hiring, with many academia job position having an explicit “(women only)” after the job title. I love research it’s my calling. But now I’m in the private sector making bank. So fuck all those bigots in academia.
The absolute numbers and averages are lagging indicators to the decisive change at the margins. The "marginal revolution" has already occurred, I suggest around 2013, and the revealed preferences of men re academia are a combination of "it's not for me" or "I don't like where it's going". These points are entirely consistent with behavioral economics - that the preference shift occurs prior to absolute numbers confirming, and become compounding factors. Similar changes in public service, in my experience.
A very soft analysis of the feminisation of academia. It is true about the expanded scope of inquiry, for example Prof Sarah Hrdy, "Mothers and Others" and her comment "we thought we knew". That is on a positive note, however on the negative side especially in the "Gender Studies" the gender studies researchers are slanted heavily into conducting research for the purpose of advocacy, not for finding facts. This can be observed by the nature of the "gendered" articles written and published at The Conversation, which claims to be a source of academic rigour, but demonstrates a strong gender bias.
Feelings have priority over facts.
The most obvious impact is that most topics of interest become about the well-being and interests of women as a group. Other groups whose ideological view of women is at an advantage are ignored. Since women are trapped in an ideological dimension of class/gender struggle under the prism of feminism, trying to crush the suggested oppressive group is a goal. Women have a very strong sense of self-righteousness and preservation, so it is quite obvious that they will make themselves as a group "the center of the universe".
Feminism is communism. If you have stand out features that make anyone feel less than a ‘ten’, you will be attacked and removed from the group.
What an incredible achievement of representation with no unintened consequences!
😆
I was a male postdoc in Academia. Applying for a job is almost impossible now, unless you are male grandfathered in professor. I have applied for several jobs to not often not even get an email, only for friends at the department say “sorry we put the job offer out again as not enough women applied”. Here in Australia you can discriminate based on sex in hiring, with many academia job position having an explicit “(women only)” after the job title.
I love research it’s my calling. But now I’m in the private sector making bank. So fuck all those bigots in academia.
Enwokification of academia will gather apace
The absolute numbers and averages are lagging indicators to the decisive change at the margins. The "marginal revolution" has already occurred, I suggest around 2013, and the revealed preferences of men re academia are a combination of "it's not for me" or "I don't like where it's going". These points are entirely consistent with behavioral economics - that the preference shift occurs prior to absolute numbers confirming, and become compounding factors. Similar changes in public service, in my experience.
A very soft analysis of the feminisation of academia. It is true about the expanded scope of inquiry, for example Prof Sarah Hrdy, "Mothers and Others" and her comment "we thought we knew". That is on a positive note, however on the negative side especially in the "Gender Studies" the gender studies researchers are slanted heavily into conducting research for the purpose of advocacy, not for finding facts.
This can be observed by the nature of the "gendered" articles written and published at The Conversation, which claims to be a source of academic rigour, but demonstrates a strong gender bias.
High time for the ICC to look at the bible! Follow the bible, bring in new behaviour rules!