1. Repeat after me: “There are no innate biological differences between men and women…except, well, women are of course better nurturers, sympathizers, empathizers, and a score of other things.”
2. Now use the law (Title IX) designed to enforce equal numbers of girls playing sports as boys to mandate an even number of women and men in physics and math departments in universities that receive federal funding (which is all universities except one or two).
3. Then try applying for a grant with a male as PI.
Full story here. With full props to Arts & Letters Daily.
Some hilarity from the article:
For one thing, the Title IX compliance reviews are already underway. In the spring of 2007, the Department of Education evaluated the Columbia University physics department. Cosmology professor Amber Miller, talking to Science magazine, described the process as a ?waste of time.? She was required to make an inventory of all the equipment in the lab and indicate whether women were allowed to use various items. ?I wanted to say, leave me alone, and let me get my work done.? But Miller and her fellow scientists are not going to be left alone.
“Say, are women allowed to use this slide rule?”
All this is fair enough, of course, because as we certainly must believe, “There are no innate biological…”. As for me, I cannot wait, if this law is passed, for the comedic opportunities when the first male sues a woman’s studies department, or English, or etc., to force them to hire more men. And naturally, lawyers will be brought in to judge the merit of promotions. Who better than a lawyer to judge differences in papers on string theory?
As you know, men are vastly overrepresented in the penal and mental institutions. Oddly, Ive never heard the feminists demand parity.