Instructor Tells Student To ‘Look at Feminist Sources,’ Shouldn't Debunk Wage Gap

[NED funded]

Did you read what the person I quoted said? I totally invalidated their assumption.

That the guy confused gender? Why does it matter though?

[Endus]

Yet I gave you a source with the original email. Failing to read that means you're refusing to take the student seriously.

The problem with that is that "feminist sources" just literally means "sources that aren't biased against women". Which is a pretty obvious recommendation. And yes; cherry-picking sources to support an incorrect conclusion is not good work, and the professor should be providing advice like that.

You want me to believe that by "feminist sources", she means "sources that are wildly biased in favor of women", and that's your bias peeking through, because that's literally not what the word means.

[Deleted]

Instructor Tells Student She Must ‘Look at Feminist Sources,’ Shouldn't Debunk the Wage Gap

"The reality is patriarchy."

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/13/in...he-must-look-a

A sociology instructor at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, barred a student from writing about the myth of the wage gap between male and female workers.

The instructor told the student, Jane Matthias, that the wage gap is "very real"—even though it isn't—and she should only consult "feminist sources" on the subject.

"Do NOT use business sources," the instructor wrote in an email to Matthias. "They blame women. The reality is patriarchy."

For the class's final paper, Matthias is required to write about a sociological issue. Her twin sister—Youtube personality Josephine Matthias, an anti-political correctness liberal—suggested she write about the purported wage gap, and why it's misleading.

But the instructor rejected this topic in an email to Jane.

"Your premise is wrong," she wrote. "The way the wage gap works is largely through the glass ceiling."

The glass ceiling—the idea that women and minorities are systematically denied high-level positions at companies—is an entirely different subject, of course. It may even have some validity. But its existence does not prove that the wage gap is really a thing. They are different phenomena.

As for the wage gap, Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown reviewed last year's most up-to-date data and found:

… when you consider men and women performing substantially similar jobs—i.e., situations in which the sexes are actually doing "equal work"—the wage gap shrinks significantly. A new examination of wage data from 33 countries around the world found that for men and women in the same position, men made just 1.6 percent more on average.

Of course, whether or not the wage gap exists isn't really the point here.

The point is that a university instructor disallowed any dissent on the subject.

Would it have been appropriate for the instructor to ask Jane to grapple with feminist sources that present a contrary argument? Of course. Demonstrating that she understands these arguments—and why they are mistaken—would be an important component of a successful paper.

But the instructor told Jane to ignore any information that might contradict the instructor's own leftist-feminist position. According to the Toronto Sun, the instructor prohibited students from consulting newspaper articles, encyclopedias, or government-compiled statistics—even though such statistics are incredibly reliable.

"Statistics themselves are devoid of analysis," the instructor wrote in an email. "Simply stating a statistic does not explain or explore any critical sociological analysis."

Ideally, though, the point of a university education is to equip students with the tools necessary for them to make sense of data and statistics on their own. This instructor does not seem interested in that project. In fact, she seems interested in just one thing: forcing her students to produce perfunctory papers copied from leftwing sociological sources—sources in conflict with reality.

Students should feel free to study a variety of perspectives in their classes. They should not be forced to write from a single perspective, especially when that perspective is flatly wrong about the phenomena it seeks to describe.

The instructor did not respond to a request for comment.

I see a sincere need in educating Americans in what "the Patriarchy" mean as there's many on either side of this argument that don't understand it.

[Skroe]

This is to you, @KrazyK923, and anyone else with this canned copy-paste response at the ready anytime somebody criticizes or points this stuff out.

Imma put it in real big letters, so you can understand it:

S T O P
C L I C K I N G
T H E S E
T H R E A D S
T H E N

When the toilets are clogged and there is crap overflowing all over the place, it's hard to not notice.

[Katchii]

Instructor needs to be fired for this crap. I don't mind if you have the views, but you should never force your views on anyone else, much less outright tell them to overlook dissenting sources on the subject...ESPECIALLY as an instructor in higher education where the entire purpose is to gather and understand the facts and information in order to form more complete, cohesive, but most importantly, your own conclusions.

[Karlz0rz]

God I'm so glad I live in Norway!

[unfilteredJW]

How dare you guys throw off the rhythm of their circle jerk.

[Deleted]

Given how wildly biased the OP is, a few points;

1> There is a wage gap. It's not as big as the straight-up unadjusted value that gets trotted out for shock value, but it's still there.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi...r_research.pdf
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ntional-wisdom
Etc.

Most people don't contest a tiny wage gap. What is usually understood - besides by intellectually dishonest hacks that are looking for a "gotcha!" - by "wage gap not real" is that:
a) the 20%-30% figure is misleading, and mitigated by a million and one factors that are not taken into account by somebody saying "women earn just 77 cents on the dollar!"
b) the remaining 1-5% has not been demonstrated - by anyone - to be caused by sexism or gender-based discrimination. In fact, the factors are often described as "unknown" or "unexplained" in almost every single credible study I have ever read.

If the professor was saying that you can't JUST use business sources that back your theory, then they're completely correct. If she was saying the student has to also use feminist sources, that's not a negative, at all.

She didn't appear to be saying "don't *just* use X". Actually, the opposite appears to be true; that she was telling a student to *just* use sources she approved of, even going so far as to give recommendations.

The language in the email seems very clear to me; "Do NOT use business sources, they blame women. Patriarchy is reality" FOH trying to add nuance to her position when it's in black and white already right in front of you. Total bullshit, but also totally expected from you.

[McFuu]

2> If the professor was saying that you can't JUST use business sources that back your theory, then they're completely correct. Cherry-picking sources based on whether or not they support your conclusion demonstrates that you're not actually doing any self-reflection or analysis; you're dishonestly manipulating the data to support a prejudgement. A decent paper is going to use all the data available. If she was saying the student has to also use feminist sources, that's not a negative, at all. Particularly since "feminist" just means "treats men and women equally". To compare to another field, it would be like using oil industry sources alone in evaluating the effects of frakking. That's not good research.

What? No, a business source is unbiased, it simply is reporting numbers. A source that is "Feminist" isn't a good source, it's likely going to be biased. Why would the source identify as feminist at all? There is no point in the identification, which is likely leading to the source wanting to cherry pick readers and continue this self-perpetuating myth.j

If the wage-gap was anywhere near as bad as is assumed, the teacher would allow any paper on the subject to be written, through research the fact of a massive wage gap would come to light.

But that doesn't happen here, instead "patriarchy" is thrown around as if a buzz word changes facts. And she wants sources use that Cherry pick facts for their own agenda, as opposed to strictly reporting all facts. And your analogy of oil industry reporting on frakking is a poor analogy. The oil industry as a whole would like to make frakking look harmless, so they can continue, it's a major corner stone of them making money.
Businesses accurately reporting the wage-gap only helps them. If one business wanted to hit its competitors it would show how balanced they are, compared to their rivals, drawing better female talent to their work force. Also bringing in customers who shop based off of business ethics.
Most studies are entirely independent or educationally backed. They still show the wage-gap being a bit of a myth.
Why would you go out of your way looking for a source that labels it self in a way to target specific readers. It's asinine.

[Deleted]

I am afraid of the future. Very afraid that stupid people do win with their "let's blame everything but ourselves".

Back in the days people accepted they were bad at something. Other people worked harder. Nowadays it is super efficient to blame it on "white privilige", "male privilige" etc.

Sad times indeed

[Deleted]

It's a bit hasty to judge the worth of a thread based solely on its title.

The title is very descriptive, and fairly accurate. Deciding what to click and not click, based on the title, is something I would imagine everybody on this website does because nobody has the time to read everything posted here.

I don't go to the anime forum and reply to threads with "Ugh, all you guys talk about is anime! SO sick of these threads WHO EVEN CARES?"

Shit's just idiotic.

[alexkeren]

The problem with that is that "feminist sources" just literally means "sources that aren't biased against women". Which is a pretty obvious recommendation. And yes; cherry-picking sources to support an incorrect conclusion is not good work, and the professor should be providing advice like that.

You want me to believe that by "feminist sources", she means "sources that are wildly biased in favor of women", and that's your bias peeking through, because that's literally not what the word means.

No, the prof was wanting ONLY feminist sources which is the exact same as you tried to say was bad for only using business sources.

If you only said a mix of sources need to be used I would agree with you.

[Endus]

b) the remaining 1-5% has not been demonstrated - by anyone - to be caused by sexism or gender-based discrimination. In fact, the factors are often described as "unknown" or "unexplained" in almost every single credible study I have ever read.

What you don't seem to understand, from those studies, is that they are attempting to account for all other quantifiable factors. Meaning that all that remains is discrimination. You can't positively identify many forms of discrimination, precisely because they're not overt; there's no direct evidence of them. So you look at the effects that result, and eliminate other factors that contribute, and what's left over is due to discrimination.

The same method is used for a host of other studies.

She didn't appear to be saying "don't *just* use X". Actually, the opposite appears to be true; that she was telling a student to *just* use sources she approved of, even going so far as to give recommendations.

She didn't use the word "just" at all. So again, that's projection. And a professor giving a recommendation isn't unusual, at all.

It's possible she's a bad prof who's pushing an agenda at the expense of their students. I'm just pointing out that the e-mail doesn't actually show that, unless you're reading it with a pre-existing "feminism is awful" bias to begin with.

[Deleted]

The problem with that is that "feminist sources" just literally means "sources that aren't biased against women". Which is a pretty obvious recommendation.

Lmao.

No, just lmao.

[Endus]

No, the prof was wanting ONLY feminist sources which is the exact same as you tried to say was bad for only using business sources.

If you only said a mix of sources need to be used I would agree with you.

Again, literally not what the e-mail said. You're adding words to what was said to justify your projection, rather than going off what the e-mail actually said.

[alexkeren]

That the guy confused gender? Why does it matter though?

Because his assumption that it was a guy taking the class was for "an easy grade". They were not confused, they made an assumption.

[the game]

The author is clearly not biased at all... /eyeroll

Conservative trigger warning - the reality is that there is a wage gap. It isn't as large as some sources claim, but it is there (about 6% on average overall when you eliminate marriage and raising kid issues) in many professions, and it is continuing to narrow. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...y-gap-factoid/)

So to state that there isn't a wage gap is simply denying reality. It is there...sorry to burst your fantasy bubble. When that 6% or so becomes 0% and people still claim that there is a wage gap...then you can complain. Until then, you are just parading your ignorance for all to see.

So it's not biased that the instructor told him he wasn't allowed to debunk it and only allowed to use feminist resources? Cause I dont' see you denouncing that.

[Deleted]

From what I have read and what has been provided to me, the wage gap should be described as an income or earnings gap and has largely to do with external factors rather than discriminatory wage practices by the employer.

If there is a wage gap, I hope Trump or the US people realize that this needs to be fixed, but I am glad that Sweden does not have this problem, maybe feminist doctors and economists should look at our stats and compare them to the US and see if there is a reasonable solution, because thus far I have not seen a reasonable solution from the camp that propose there is a wage gap (to the wage gap problem).

[Deleted]

What you don't seem to understand, from those studies, is that they are attempting to account for all other quantifiable factors. Meaning that all that remains is discrimination.

You haven't demonstrated that. They aren't comfortable with putting it down to discrimination, so I'm not sure why you believe you should. Endus, you fucking start with a conclusion and work backwards. Your mind literally cannot comprehend that it's not discrimination, can it?

there's no direct evidence of them. So you look at the effects that result, and eliminate other factors that contribute, and what's left over is due to discrimination.

She didn't use the word "just" at all. So again, that's projection. And a professor giving a recommendation isn't unusual, at all.

No, but she did tell the student very clearly "NOT" to use a certain kind of source that is likely to contradict her personal ideas about the world. She also made a claims that "patriarchy is reality" and "those sources blame women".

So yeah, you got me; she didn't use the word "just" (even though you are very happy to insert that as a bit of nuance to make her more defensible yourself ) so obviously she meant to go off and read her approved recommended feminist books AND as many non-feminist or anti-feminist sources as she could find, I'm sure, eventhoughsheliterallyjustsaiddontreadsourcesthatdenypatriarchytheory.

Don't reply to me. I'm not wasting even a second longer on this weak shit, Endus. Come back to me when you aren't a dishonest fucking hack.

[Endus]

Lmao.

No, just lmao.

Definition of feminism
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Words are hard.

Because his assumption that it was a guy taking the class was for "an easy grade". They were not confused, they made an assumption.

Given that I'm the "his" in that sentence, you're flat-out wrong, and just making shit up.

You haven't demonstrated that. They aren't comfortable with putting it down to discrimination, so I'm not sure why you believe you should. Endus, you fucking start with a conclusion and work backwards. Your mind literally cannot comprehend that it's not discrimination, can it?

You absolutely do not start with a conclusion. Who the hell told you that? That's how propaganda works, not research.

You start with a hypothesis, and then you test that hypothesis. And if the evidence can't support it, that's your conclusion. If you exclude relevant evidence because it doesn't support your desired conclusion, you're deliberately biasing your research. Research is not about cherry-picking sources that support your predetermined conclusion. Anyone trying that garbage deserves an F on that paper as a result.