By Professor Doom
I’ve said many times there’s a systemic anti-male bias on campus, but for the most part I’ve only documented it with words. It’s not just words which show a distinct dislike of males, and allow me to demonstrate with one campus which is putting their money where the y chromosomes aren’t (the self-identified ones, anyway):
I’m quite puzzled why this hasn’t received more news coverage.
It discovered that female faculty, on average, were being paid less than their male colleagues, taking into account age, experience, hiring date and “some performance data.”
Statistics is a particularly weak-willed subject: you don’t have to torture it much to have it tell you anything you want to hear. That said, there’s plenty of evidence the gender wage gap is a myth. A simple look at, say, male boxers versus female boxers shows males make more to be sure…but if you compare male models to female models, then now you can show females make more. I cite these two examples because simply by weighting between extremes (using mysterious “performance data”) you can get any result you want. Most studies use sane weightings and account for career choices, hours worked, and such, of course.
“Sane” is a matter of opinion, I guess. What to do?
We can just use logic. If this wage gap was real, any company which strictly hires females would save 20% on employee pay—a HUGE bonus to any company’s bottom line. Since there’s no company that’s showing great success from this strategy, we can conclude this alleged “pay gap” is simply statistics begging for mercy from an evil manipulator.
Anyway, this Canadian university manipulated their statistics to get the politically correct result. And what to do about this alleged problem?
The Canadian Press reports that more than 300 faculty got a pay bump of $2,050 earlier this month – those who identify as female or “non-male,” apparently meaning that only cisgender men and transgender men (biological women) are left out.
Wait a second. The usual (fake) statistical quote is that women earn 80% as much as men. So…they’re saying a measly $2,000 will close the gap? But that would mean men on this campus only earn a lousy $10,000 or so a year! Why didn’t the university ask why their manipulated statistics meant the faculty were only getting starvation wages?
More importantly, why isn’t there outrage over this blatantly sexist policy?
Time and again I’ve been passed over for being male…or at least, whispers told me as much. I tell myself the rumors are just feeding my natural paranoia but how does a male on that campus not protest this openly unfair treatment? For a time I did nothing to discourage a department head’s belief I was a homosexual; she was fooled
sufficiently that I stayed on campus a few years longer than otherwise, I’m sure…but I never considered that if I just self-identified as female my career and paycheck would be enhanced. I’m going to claim integrity kept me from doing so, though I suspect my height and proportions would make passing as a non-male quite difficult.
Oh, by the way, it’s not just this one campus:
The University of British Columbia gave non-men a 2 percent raise in 2013; McMaster University did it two years later ($3,515) at the urging of its professor, Charlotte Yates, who just did the same as provost as Guelph; and the University of Waterloo gave its self-professed females $2,905 in 2016.
The gentle reader needs to understand the insidious “best practices” policies of higher ed: once one place does it, other schools feel justified. So I suspect this practice will spread throughout North America soon enough.
And there’s not nearly enough outrage. Note carefully how the bonuses go to “non-men”…this is targeting a very specific group on campus. Considering there are now, supposedly, dozens of different genders, going after a minority like this should be a problem but…there’s no outrage.
Back to this particular Canadian university, perhaps the males could enhance their pay with promotions or awards? Not a chance at this school:
…is also working on non-men quotas in senior leadership roles and “prestigious awards,” and badgering faculty into revealing information about their race and ability status so it can impose quotas for those categories.
Again, how is this remotely fair?
Why is there no outrage? I totally respect that some jobs require a certain gender (eg, dress fashion models), but outside of those edge cases, I promise the gentle reader if a school started giving male-specific bonuses and job searches for positions and activities which had nothing to do with gender, I’d be speaking out against it.
But is there truly nobody in a position of power capable of identifying this obscene sexism?
Post a Comment