I admit I did not listen to the whole podcast, but I quickly found some comments that I object to. We can start here:
"So why is there still such a big push to give women more opportunities in higher education when it is men who have been behind for decades?"
This is not true for STEM fields. I spent 20 years working for the University of California system, mostly as a UC Berkeley science editor. In STEM fields, men outnumber women starting at the undergrad level, and the imbalance gets worse as students progress through Ph.D. programs and into professorial positions. For example, the UC Berkeley School of Engineering has 71 members of the National Academy of Engineering, and only 11 of them are female:
However, three of the five most recent Nobel Laureates who were either students or professors (or both) in the department are women. The five are Frances Arnold, Jennifer Doudna, Carolyn Bertozzi, David MacMillan and Omar Yaghi.
Then there is the statements at 36:40. What is overlooked here is that the household is not just a site of consumption, it is a site of production as well. If a woman buys food so she can fix dinner for her family, and buys clothes and diapers for her children, this is not a form of personal consumption. It's household production.
This is clearer in traditional Asian societies where the private and public realms are more divided than in the West. In the 1990s, when I was a student in Indonesia, men did hand over their paychecks to their wives, who were the managers of the household. But this was not a sign of their wives' high status in the public realm.
Finally, to characterize what Trump is doing to U.S. universities as a "correction" is simultaneously naive and grotesque.
I think there were holes in the logic on a couple of points that were made in this episode:
1. That more dollars are spent on "women's health research" than on "men's health research".
I have heard that non-gendered health research tends to default to the male subject. For example research on heart attacks. So you are missing part of the picture to only compare gender specific research. I would want to know, to what extent does non-gendered health research use male subjects only, and to what extent does this obscure important gender differences? If the answer is to the tune of $X, then to compare women's and men's health research you would need to compare $women v $men + $men-as-default.
2. If you are going to put women's earnings into the context of women spending men's earnings, then please take a look at WHO women are spending ON; the income-earning partner, the kids, others? What % of women's spending is solely on themselves?
I admit I did not listen to the whole podcast, but I quickly found some comments that I object to. We can start here:
"So why is there still such a big push to give women more opportunities in higher education when it is men who have been behind for decades?"
This is not true for STEM fields. I spent 20 years working for the University of California system, mostly as a UC Berkeley science editor. In STEM fields, men outnumber women starting at the undergrad level, and the imbalance gets worse as students progress through Ph.D. programs and into professorial positions. For example, the UC Berkeley School of Engineering has 71 members of the National Academy of Engineering, and only 11 of them are female:
https://engineering.berkeley.edu/research-and-faculty/faculty/national-academy-of-engineering-members/
Among the faculty of the chemistry department only 15 of the 52 professors are female:
https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/faculty/chem
However, three of the five most recent Nobel Laureates who were either students or professors (or both) in the department are women. The five are Frances Arnold, Jennifer Doudna, Carolyn Bertozzi, David MacMillan and Omar Yaghi.
Then there is the statements at 36:40. What is overlooked here is that the household is not just a site of consumption, it is a site of production as well. If a woman buys food so she can fix dinner for her family, and buys clothes and diapers for her children, this is not a form of personal consumption. It's household production.
This is clearer in traditional Asian societies where the private and public realms are more divided than in the West. In the 1990s, when I was a student in Indonesia, men did hand over their paychecks to their wives, who were the managers of the household. But this was not a sign of their wives' high status in the public realm.
Finally, to characterize what Trump is doing to U.S. universities as a "correction" is simultaneously naive and grotesque.
I think there were holes in the logic on a couple of points that were made in this episode:
1. That more dollars are spent on "women's health research" than on "men's health research".
I have heard that non-gendered health research tends to default to the male subject. For example research on heart attacks. So you are missing part of the picture to only compare gender specific research. I would want to know, to what extent does non-gendered health research use male subjects only, and to what extent does this obscure important gender differences? If the answer is to the tune of $X, then to compare women's and men's health research you would need to compare $women v $men + $men-as-default.
2. If you are going to put women's earnings into the context of women spending men's earnings, then please take a look at WHO women are spending ON; the income-earning partner, the kids, others? What % of women's spending is solely on themselves?
Well, you got me thinking at least... Anne