Former student sues LSE over its ‘gender bias’

Permabear · 08-09-2011 1:19pm

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann · 08-09-2011 1:23pm

It's not a guarantee that someone who might score high on the Hare test might also be predisposed to criminality.

maybe I'm having a blonde moment but -

Is the HARE test the test that identifies psychos?

Monty Burnz · 08-09-2011 1:24pm

panda100 wrote: »

I'm not suprised that Summers was witch hunted out of Harvard, after saying that women are underrepresented in science,maths etc, beause they are more stupid than men. Isn't that what he's effectively saying?Or am I reading the reserach all wrong?

Oh my god. This is what you are up against. Where did anyone say that?

Alopex · 08-09-2011 1:36pm

bluewolf wrote: »

But isn't that why they introduced the HPAT for example... I thought it was shown to be biased in favour of men whereas it was acknowledged the LC favoured women, so it gave medicine entrants a more even chance.

I don't think so. I think it was introduced to get more suitable medicine candidates.

Basically it recognises that someone who gets an A1 in history, art, english, business and geography, but a C3 in chemistry and maths; may not be as suitable as someone who gets B1s in Physics, chemistry, biology, maths etc

Logical Fallacy · 08-09-2011 2:44pm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

maybe I'm having a blonde moment but - Is the HARE test the test that identifies psychos?

Yeah, it the one that is most commonly used in the diagnosis of psychopathic tendencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

LeeHoffmann · 08-09-2011 3:16pm

..so are you saying that apparent 'psychopaths' aren't more likely to commit crime?

Logical Fallacy · 08-09-2011 3:47pm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

..so are you saying that apparent 'psychopaths' aren't more likely to commit crime?

Nope. I am saying it is a mistake to assume that someone who scores highly on the HARE test for psychopathic traits would automatically be criminally disposed.

It's not 100% that scoring high on the test means you break the law.

LeeHoffmann · 08-09-2011 4:14pm

I agree with that.

I think it's more that there are intelligent and less intelligent psychopaths, just like everyone else, but the more intelligent ones tend to keep themselves out of prison,

...and thus, successfully committing crimes for longer...hence being more memorable and noteworthy

My post (the second one) was just meant as a continuation of the previous poster's idea - i.e. the highly intelligent ones (who choose to commit crime) are more likely to avoid getting caught, therefore more opportunity for crime which, if they take advantage of, will lead to them being more memorable.

Completely agree with you LF - I don't believe in any deterministic types of explanation

Seraphina · 08-09-2011 7:08pm

Has anyone else here actually ever TAKEN a gender studies class?

Because I have. I can guarantee to you that it is NOT all about women vs men bad and good etc etc. In fact my course wasn't even specifically gender studies (it was gender and archaeology), but it was still much more in depth than that!!!

What I can guarantee happened, is that because he quit the course after only 6 weeks, he missed all the good stuff. That first six weeks is when you get all the basics in. The thing is about gender studies, is that it is a field which has definitely grown from feminism and it's core issues, and as such (as with ANY course), you start from the beginning, learn the history and where it all started, and then move on to the more complex/recent theory.

He probably sat through the history of feminism learning about the suffragettes and bra-burning in the 60's (first wave feminism, all very mis-guided), and got all grumpy because he had to listen to how women used not be able to vote, had less in terms of rights and land ownership (blah blah blah you know it all) and got bored and sick of it. He probably sat there thinking "yea yeah yeah I know this, why are we talking about the PAST" and decided it was biased in favour of women.

I learned a lot on my gender studies course. Not just about feminism, but about how we view people through gender, make different assumptions, and judge the exact same traits differently depending on whether a man or a woman has them. It was about identity and how we create it through our actions and a lot of other stuff. We certainly did not sit around bashing men (it was a small class, 4 girls and 3 guys). We also read a lot by various male academics and writers, discussing masculinity and 'masculanism' (that's why we don't have a male equivalent to feminism, the word construction just sounds absurd!) and many other male-related topics.

I hope that guy gets his ass handed to him in court. Does he even know what the rest of the course would have entailed? You really can't make that kind of judgement in 6 weeks!

southsiderosie · 08-09-2011 7:25pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sonics2k wrote: »

He was basically forced to retire for pointing out a statistical fact, which was not aimed at saying "men are smarter than women".

Just to interject - the Summers issue went far beyond his comments on women in the sciences. At the time, he was pushing major changes to the structure of the university which were quite popular with the students, but some of which threatened the autonomy of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. After multiple clashes with the faculty, the gender comments gave them a bat to publicly beat Summers with (a public that would be completely uninterested in teaching loads and administrative restructuring), and he was shoved out.

gargleblaster · 08-09-2011 7:47pm

Seraphina wrote: »

Does he even know what the rest of the course would have entailed? You really can't make that kind of judgement in 6 weeks!

Sure you can, if you go in with an agenda/axe to grind or a giant chip on your shoulder. It would probably help if you're also shortsighted.

Dolbert · 08-09-2011 7:52pm

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

doopa · 08-09-2011 8:14pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I disagree that the official academic position on equality is that we are all equal. Modern biology shows up many of the physical differences and how they impact on cultural phenomenon. E.g. brain chemistry and attitude to risk. Much of this is demonstrably due to physical differences in hormone exposure. These are physical processes that can be directly used to explain the differences in the two sexes. Epigenetical (spelling?) studies on childhood development show that males and females undergo changes in gene expression, so that even identical twins that have the same genome can still develop in different ways. If you only meant that socialist academics (sorry sociologists) think we are all equal then ok batter on.

I more or less agree that gender studies is code for woman's advocacy - but think its probably still required whatever they call it. Academia is really still a man's game. The stats you quote for success in second and third level education still aren't matched in higher level positions. E.g. Pharmacy - loads of woman pharmacists. Few managers. Loads of biology students few female science professors. Something is happening, whether or not we should try to do something about it is a separate question.

southsiderosie · 08-09-2011 8:41pm

The 39-year-old, who attended the university last year to take up a Gender, Media and Culture Masters degree

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

doopa · 08-09-2011 9:23pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

Well that ain't the only point of college but here is some info from Sussex:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/gender/1-2-5.html

Permabear · 08-09-2011 10:17pm

This post has been deleted.

IzzyWizzy · 08-09-2011 11:32pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

See, I just couldn't get past this line in the article. Why in the world is this a Masters program, and what is somebody supposed to do with this degree?

I am not saying that these issues should not be studied, but a more logical approach would be to have an interdisciplinary research group or center, rather than asking people to shell out thousands of dollars for a degree that I can't, frankly, see any use for.

Most of the top universities have Gender Studies programs, so there's obviously plenty of demand. I did an interdisciplinary degree for which I took a GS module, so I got to know a lot of the students. Looking at LinkedIn, most of them seem to have done pretty well for themselves, so I suppose they bigged up the 'transferable skills' on their resumes. Also, a lot of people just have rich parents willing to shell out money for them to do hobby courses.

mcmoustache · 09-09-2011 4:05pm

Dolorous wrote: »

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

It would if the course was called Women's Studies.

TLL makes no secret of what it is and I have no time for anyone who'd complain about things being discussed here from a female perspective. On the other hand, calling something Gender Studies if* it is just a renamed Women's Studies course seems a bit disingenuous.

* I say "if" because I don't believe this guy. I think he already had an axe to grind and I have no sympathy for him.

James Jones · 12-09-2011 8:48pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Dolorous wrote: »

Is it just me, or does his rant remind anyone else of guys coming into TLL and bitching about everything being discussed from a female perspective? :pac:

It would if the course was called Women's Studies.
TLL makes no secret of what it is and I have no time for anyone who'd complain about things being discussed here from a female perspective. On the other hand, calling something Gender Studies if* it is just a renamed Women's Studies course seems a bit disingenuous.
* I say "if" because I don't believe this guy. I think he already had an axe to grind and I have no sympathy for him.

+1.

If the course was Gender Studies then it should have been about Gender. It seems to me that the term "Gender" has been hi-jacked exclusively for use in relation to one-gender only.
For example Gender Based Violence seems to be exclusively about women even though men also suffer domestic abuse.
Gender Equality seems to be about women only but Minister Shatter does his best to make up fairly lame excuses.

Dolbert · 12-09-2011 9:26pm

Right, except this guy gave the course just six weeks before jacking it in completely, he couldn't possibly have given it a chance. Most people can see here that he had a chip on his shoulder from the get-go.

James Jones · 12-09-2011 10:40pm

Dolorous wrote: »

Right, except this guy gave the course just six weeks before jacking it in completely, he couldn't possibly have given it a chance. Most people can see here that he had a chip on his shoulder from the get-go.

Maybe most people HERE in TTL do see that but most of the comments HERE seem to think otherwise. I thought the one by Phillyguy was interesting:

Sorry- but I took a Sexuality class (I thought I'd get an A!).Very quickly (maybe 3 weeks- maybe more) did I realize that the theme was:"Gay men and women good, Straight men EVIL".The problem is any essay a man writes is then deconstructed as wrong and you get a mediocre to bad grade- and grades matter- a lot.
Its the same with African American studies- I've heard naive students- who wanted to actually learn something different- taking these courses- to be rewarded with low grades and to be treated as targets for classroom diatribes.
Exactly how long does it take for someone to realize they are being discriminated against? Why is three weeks too short? I imagine that was when he got his "deconstructed " paper back-

Permabear · 13-09-2011 12:42pm

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann · 13-09-2011 1:15pm

That sounds like a good point Permabear. Playing devil's advocate (genuinely because I know NOTHING about Gender studies/women's studies), could they be focusing on male homosexuality and female sexuality etc because that has traditionally (and arguably still is) seen as 'other' - i.e. that male heterosexuality has been treated as the norm for so long?

If the focus is exclusively on women/gay people then obviously it is biased but it also seems to me that neglecting to analyse and challenge stereotypes of male identity and sexuality is akin to shooting themselves in the foot i.e. they would then also be assuming that male sexuality etc is the 'norm' and is not a social construct etc?

Permabear · 13-09-2011 2:20pm

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann · 13-09-2011 2:30pm

it's legitimate at this point to ask why, if Women's Studies has been renamed Gender Studies as a gesture of inclusivity, such departments still typically have hardly any male faculty and still offer courses only on topics of interest to women

I didn't say it wasn't legitimate to ask that question. In my previous post, I agreed with you on this. I think women's issues/topics are relevant to men but that's a side point. Again, I'm trying to understand why the bias exists now. One possibility is that some people feel that those groups are still seen as 'other' etc. (Let me make clear - my opinion: bias = bad).

Permabear · 13-09-2011 2:52pm

This post has been deleted.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 13-09-2011 3:14pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's pretty disgraceful and it would be extremely difficult for Swarthmore to argue that they are not sexist. If that's the course content of those courses, do they have any place in modern society? Should they be confined to the past along with such things as when women didn't have the right the vote?

Even a modern, scientific university such as UL has similar topics on their equivalent course:

http://www2.ul.ie/web/WWW/Services/Research/Graduate_School/Prospective_Students/Graduate_Programmes/Taught_Programmes/Arts,_Humanities_&_Social_Sciences/Gender_Culture_%26_Society

LeeHoffmann · 13-09-2011 3:41pm

I agree with you on most things you said there Permabear.

This is especially true on today's university campus, where male students are in the minority.

I'm wondering whether there is much of a difference between the number of male and female students? I've heard (as we all have) that girls are out-performing boys in the Leaving Cert but I'm wondering whether the difference is marginal or substantial

Should sexuality be a focus of gender studies? I'm asking because I think female sexuality is still mainly misunderstood and so, this should perhaps be a focus of a gender studies course (in my extremely ignorant and humble opinion). However, I also think that stereotypes of male sexuality should be analysed etc in this context as well. According to wikipedia, men's studies is a sub-category of gender studies - i.e. it would seem that gender studies is not meant to be exclusively focused on women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies#The_development_of_gender_theory

Permabear · 13-09-2011 3:59pm

This post has been deleted.

LeeHoffmann · 13-09-2011 4:15pm

Irish universities currently have 57 percent female, 43 percent male enrollment.

This seems marginal to me. I wonder whether there's much difference in numbers between employed male and female academics

Of the students who earned 450 points or more in 2010, 61 percent were girls, 39 percent boys.

That is a substantial difference. Do you know if it carries forward to university results?

"Sexuality studies" are more often focused on sexual orientation, though.

That's a pity

Former student sues LSE over its ‘gender bias’

Comments