One of the victims of the "more women in the sciences" movement, it appears, is the sciences themselves. Here's Jay Shalin of the fabulous Pope Center, with a report from the field:
One of the “more-women-in-science” movement’s leading lights, Susan Rosser, the dean of Georgia Tech’s college of arts and sciences, spoke on the topic at UNC-Chapel Hill recently. According to Rosser and other feminist proponents of the movement, the “real” explanations why men dominate the world of scientific inquiry are cultural traditions, overt sexual discrimination, and unwitting bias—not biology.But don't tell the feminists they are overly emotional. They get very upset when you say that.
Rosser identified a number of factors that, she said, contribute to the disparities in science: women’s tendency to dislike competition, their need to feel some sort of connection with the subject they are studying, their tendency to not isolate problems without context, their desire for social relevance, and the insecurities they tend to feel in such a male-dominated world.
It almost seems as if she was saying that women are too emotional for the world of science the way it is presently constituted.
One wonders how, in the name of equality, someone would demand that the standards of inclusion be lowered for them, but there you have it. And one way to lower the bar for a group is to stamp out competition:
Rosser wants competition de-emphasized, to make the classroom more comfortable to females. She would also like to see less classroom focus on concepts like “right and wrong” and “black and white,” a bizarre notion to promote in a world where synapses fire neurotransmitters or they don’t, the molecules combine or they don’t, and the software compiles or it doesn’t.Yes, truth can be so politically troublesome, can't it?
Maybe when the Darwinists catch a breath between rants about creationists plotting to destroy science they can devote a little time to the real threat to science in their own backyard.