Women dominate the “soft sciences” like psychology (Willyard) and sociology (American Sociological Association), while men dominate STEM, which stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Feminists have been aggressively pushing a narrative over the last few years that more women are needed in STEM fields (Obama, 2013). Let’s put aside the double-standards that ignore the less glamorous male-dominated fields like coal miner or construction worker, while also exempting all female-dominated fields from any expectation to get more men into them for the sake of diversity. Instead let’s focus on the reality that women prefer the “soft sciences” which can’t be objectively proven right or wrong, to the hard sciences where objective results are expected.
Gender Studies is the perfect example of a useless degree in unscientific nonsense, but it might surprise many to learn that Gender Studies is part of the Sociology Department, which is generally respectable. Sociology is the study of human society after all, and thus Gender Studies is obviously a subset of this, although one that is completely divorced from reality. The lack of objective testing is the reason why Sociology is considered an art, and not a science.
Women often simply don’t WANT to do science, technology, engineering, or math (Pearce, 2013). The reasons aren’t that hard to fathom either: women would rather work with people, as social interaction is their strength. Scientists, engineers, and mathematicians have far less human interaction over the course of their jobs than female dominated industries like education and nursing. The only sciences women are drawn to are the ones wherein the subjects are people, not chemicals, circuit boards, or math equations. In addition to STEM, Economics has also come under fire for being too male-dominated, but the reasons are even more telling than STEM. While Feminists may express a concern about women getting left behind in the future job-market with STEM, their reasoning for more women in Economics is all about power.
Dr. Victoria Bateman of the Guardian wrote an article recently that contains all the usual talking points about how important women are in the sciences, as if their vaginas and estrogen give them some magical insight into the sciences themselves. She bemoans that economists (who influence economic policy) view issues “through male eyes” (Bateman, 2015). It’s clear that the real issue is that there aren’t enough women influencing economic policies for the sole benefit of women, as she mentions “female empowerment” several times in her article, while linking to other related Feminist articles.
Curiously Victoria Bateman actually majored in Economics and not Gender Studies (The Guardian), and yet, she not only talks like a Feminist with a Gender Studies major, but even uses her nudity to get attention just like a Feminist (Shakespeare, 2014). In fact, as I have access to my university’s library, I looked up Dr. Bateman to see what her academic contributions were to the field of Economics over the years. The only published paper I found was a 2011 paper on European wheat markets from 1350 – 1800 (Bateman, 2011). Everything else was about her pushing “women’s empowerment” (Bateman, 2014) or articles about her getting naked and how “brave” it was (Moody, 2014).
I’m not saying that Dr. Bateman didn’t earn her degree, but it’s very clear that her focus is on Feminism and not Economics. The mixing of Feminism and Economics isn’t new though. There is recognition of so-called “Feminist Economics” from which we can thank for things like the “wage gap” myth. It also attempts to include non-market activity into economic models like domestic duties and caring for children and family (Wikipedia).
I can sum up “Feminist Economics” by saying that it’s an attempt to turn Economics, which is a science, into a “soft science” (i.e. an art) like that of sociology and psychology. The entire purpose of economics, and why it is valuable to an organization or government for the purposes of policy making, is because it measures the management of scarce resources. Once objective and measurable data is replaced or supplemented with unknowable variables the economic models become useless, as the “economists” can create any result they want by increasing or decreasing unknowable and unquantifiable variables.
This is, of course, the entire point. Men excel at the “hard” sciences, while women excel at the “soft” sciences. Thus the path to the female takeover of fields in STEM and Economics is to convert them from “hard” sciences to “soft” sciences (i.e. from sciences to arts), and thus allow women to turn them into completely useless exercises in Feminist propaganda and mental masturbation (just like Gender Studies).
American Sociological Association. (n.d.). Percentage of Sociology Degrees Awarded to Women Awarded Since 1966. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from American Sociological Association: http://www.asanet.org/research/stats/gender/soc_degrees_women.cfm
Bateman, V. N. (2011). The evolution of markets in early modern Europe, 1350-1800: a study of wheat prices. Economic History Review, 64(2), 447-471. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.2010.00540.x
Bateman, V. (2014). Why Gender Matters in Economics. Times Higher Education, (2178), 50-51.
Bateman, V. (2015, June 2). We need a sexual revolution in economics. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/02/we-need-a-sexual-revolution-in-economics
Moody, O. (2014, May 17). Dr Bateman’s nude is a brave attempt to change attitudes. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from The Times: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4092358.ece
Obama, B. (2013, February). Women in STEM. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from Office of Science and Technology Policy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/women
Pearce, E. (2013, December 9). The real reason why girls don’t do maths A-level. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10506087/Girls-maths-physics-A-levels-The-real-reason-why-girls-dont-do-maths-A-level.html
Shakespeare, S. (2014, May 13). Cambridge don strips off and says it’s educational. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627659/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Cambridge-don-strips-says-educational.html
The Guardian. (n.d.). Victoria Bateman. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/victoria-bateman
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Feminist economics. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_economics
Willyard, C. (n.d.). Men: A growing minority? Retrieved June 6, 2015, from American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx