NYT: When the Left Turns on Its Own

[Riggo-toni]

19 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

As compared to females they certainly do.

Oh bull**** - I spent far more time studying female figures when I was in college...and still do today.

[Destino]

16 hours ago, PeterMP said:

What if I told you that females do less well than males (on average) in classes in which the class is graded in such a manner as compared to classes that have more of a straight grading system?  That if you say that everybody that has above a 93% or above on their course work at the end of a semester is going to get an A, the top 10% of the students will contain more females (and females will get a larger percentage of the A's than males) than if you say the top 10% of the class is going to get A's.

What if I told you women do better in school then men overall?  Wouldn't you think that's an important bit of information to include when complaining about how imagined micro aggressions hold women back?

 

Weird how that bit gets left out... because usually when we seek to help a group we help the group that needs it and not the group that's outperforming others. 

 

 

 

[elkabong82]

20 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

In this thread already:

 

 

 

The first is what the Professor is suggesting, right?  I clearly said I agreed with it.  

 

In this thread already:

 

 

Doesn't it matter if the students have a point?  Can the professor have a point, but the students also to have a point even if their behavior perusing their point is poor?

 

If you are a racist, does that mean that every point you make on race is wrong?  If a person responds in an inappropriate manner to a racist comment by a racist, does that make the person that made the comment less racist?

 

Generally, I disagree that whites were being told to go away now any more than minorities were in the past and that's really the key.  There was a voluntary off campus activity for whites and voluntary on campus activities for minorities.

 

In the recent past, minorities went off campus because that's where the University organized events for them.

 

 

Why shouldn't we be concerned if textbooks are most likely decreasing the performance of females in math classes?

 

No, you didn't clearly explain anything. You asked questions about the differences in the two that had already clearly been answered, and proceeded to ignore those answers. 

 

So I'll try one last time. 

 

The entire reason the event was changed to where whites left campus was due to minority student outrage over the presidential election and them saying they felt excluded due to the results. The solution the school came up with CHANGES an event meant to show diversity through absence into an event that does NOT highlight diversity through absence, but instead encourages the exclusion of a race of people. The original meaning of the event is lost and it's crazy you don't understand the difference and also seemingly refuse to ackowledge what the professor said about the event change, despite me directkly respodning to you with it several times now. 

 

I never said the students don't have a point. I said I agree with the professor, and I think his point is correct and the students' point is incorrect. Why?? Because what they did changes the intent of the original event and the professor was correct in pointing it out. You clearly don't understand that the original intent was to highlight diversity through absence, despite it being said to you a lot now. That original intent is gone with the event change, and the reasons for the change is due to election results and a school appeasing students through exclusion of another race. 

 

As for the math thing, my only guess from that piss poor response is that you're just here to argue for your agenda and not here to actually discuss anything, not surprising seeing as you're agreeing with students who also attempted to do the same.

 All I said was that the word problems themselves being outdated are a bigger issue than the names used, and your response is a stupid strawman. So why are females the only important ones? Don't all students deserve more relevant problems? You see, just like your last question, these questions are not intended to create a dialogue, but rather to incite by twisting intent to make the poster look bad. It's a crappy tactic and one you should be above using.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

What if I told you women do better in school then men overall?  Wouldn't you think that's an important bit of information to include when complaining about how imagined micro aggressions hold women back?

 

Weird how that bit gets left out... because usually when we seek to help a group we help the group that needs it and not the group that's outperforming others. 

 

This depends on what level of school, what subject, and what age you are talking about and how you are measuring "better".  Is "better" a short term out come as a grade in a class or something longer term?

 

In terms of STEM by most final measures, men are still doing better.  Even correcting for the percentages getting undergrad degrees, more men are getting PhDs.  Even correcting for the percentages getting PhDs, more men are getting faculty positions.  And then even correcting for the percentages that get faculty positions, more men are ending up tenured.  And even correcting for those tenured, men end up making more and end up with higher achievement (e.g. National Academy of Sciences).

 

If more men are getting more better paying positions in STEM then women, it is hard to argue that women really overall are doing better, I think.

 

Also females still at least feel like they are less good at math by an early age.

 

(And at some level, this is even an over simplification because it treats all of STEM equally, which just isn't true.)

 

With all of that said, there is no doubt that modifications that favor females (on average) by definition disfavor males (on average) (A point that Kilmer has already made and I quickly agreed with).  Part of that was intentional.  For several decades, there has been an effort to reform textbooks and things like that.  That part was intentional.  The other part I think has been less intentional, but still beneficial to females. I think some changes have been just more the result of urbanization, suburbanization, and increases in population coupled with legal liability has increased the structure of schools where in general males do less well learning in structures sittings.

 

Like most problems, there is no easy answer.  But I have never accepted that because there are no obvious answers that we should not try and find solutions.

[Kilmer17]

I think textbook and tests should be as neutral as possible.  But I think true neutrality is impossible to achieve.  But acknowledgement of the inability to achieve it is not impossible, and therefor, should be the goal.

 

Des brings up a great point about females outperfoming males in school though.  How do we address the fact that women represent about 55 percent of undergrads at 4 year schools?  Or do we just acknowledge and accept it?  And if so, doesnt that then needed to be used in the dialogue regarding the use for more male names in textbooks?  Maybe a good reason to use more male names is that men need to have that extra help to make things equal?

[MEANDWARF]

[Destino]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

This depends on what level of school, what subject, and what age you are talking about and how you are measuring "better".  Is "better" a short term out come as a grade in a class or something longer term?

First let me say that this response from you feels like deflection, because you and I both know that women are outperforming men educationally.  Rather than admit that you want to play the "well it depends on what you definition of is is" game.  That's weak.  So let's do this, you tell me what level of schooling and age group of males is currently outperforming women.  As for the measure, the answer is obviously graduation rate and grades.  What happens after in the long term includes far too many other factors. 

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

In terms of STEM by most final measures, men are still doing better.  Even correcting for the percentages getting undergrad degrees, more men are getting PhDs.  Even correcting for the percentages getting PhDs, more men are getting faculty positions.  And then even correcting for the percentages that get faculty positions, more men are ending up tenured.  And even correcting for those tenured, men end up making more and end up with higher achievement (e.g. National Academy of Sciences).

Just to be clear we've now narrowed the scope from educational achievement in general to STEM.  Why would micro aggressions be so effective in only this narrowly targeted segment of education? 

 

I'd also like to know what the numbers are correcting for number of applicants and qualifications.  That would be actual evidence of bias.  Simply looking at outcomes isn't evidence of anything.  Most mechanics being male isn't evidence that technical schools are sexist.      

 

Quote

If more men are getting more better paying positions in STEM then women, it is hard to argue that women really overall are doing better, I think.

I think that's a massive leap dependent on questionable logic.  You're taking an outcome in an area of study that does not represent education in general, deciding that women are avoiding it because of educational bias (unsupported conclusion), and then using it as evidence that women are disadvantaged in education in general.    

 

Quote

Also females still at least feel like they are less good at math by an early age.

Feelings are not facts. 

 

Quote

With all of that said, there is no doubt that modifications that favor females (on average) by definition disfavor males (on average) (A point that Kilmer has already made and I quickly agreed with).  Part of that was intentional.  For several decades, there has been an effort to reform textbooks and things like that.  That part was intentional. 

Why are we intentionally disfavoring males when its males are consistently under-performing educationally and calling this equality? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

*insular educational standards debate*

[PeterMP]

49 minutes ago, Destino said:

First let me say that this response from you feels like deflection, because you and I both know that women are outperforming men educationally.  Rather than admit that you want to play the "well it depends on what you definition of is is" game.  That's weak.  So let's do this, you tell me what level of schooling and age group of males is currently outperforming women.  As for the measure, the answer is obviously graduation rate and grades.  What happens after in the long term includes far too many other factors. 

 

Just to be clear we've now narrowed the scope from educational achievement in general to STEM.  Why would micro aggressions be so effective in only this narrowly targeted segment of education? 

 

I'd also like to know what the numbers are correcting for number of applicants and qualifications.  That would be actual evidence of bias.  Simply looking at outcomes isn't evidence of anything.  Most mechanics being male isn't evidence that technical schools are sexist.      

 

I think that's a massive leap dependent on questionable logic.  You're taking an outcome in an area of study that does not represent education in general, deciding that women are avoiding it because of educational bias (unsupported conclusion), and then using it as evidence that women are disadvantaged in education in general.    

 

Feelings are not facts. 

 

Why are we intentionally disfavoring males when its males are consistently under-performing educationally and calling this equality? 

 

How about math SAT scores?  That's what, High School juniors and seniors?

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-thats-persisted-for-45-years-high-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/

 

(Though based on standardized tests it even starts younger).

 

As to why/how, there is a lot of literature out there on that.  We can start with this:

 

http://www.rewire.org/our-future/teachers-feed-stem-gender-gap/

 

Most of is based on a historical (and implicit) bias that men are better at STEM than women, which results in small differencesin behaviors that result in discrimination against females (i.e. microaggression).

 

(Do you want me to start quoting from peer reviewed published studies like I would in an evolution or climate change thread?)

 

Because out comes still indicate we are actually favoring males.

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think textbook and tests should be as neutral as possible.  But I think true neutrality is impossible to achieve.  But acknowledgement of the inability to achieve it is not impossible, and therefor, should be the goal.

 

Des brings up a great point about females outperfoming males in school though.  How do we address the fact that women represent about 55 percent of undergrads at 4 year schools?  Or do we just acknowledge and accept it?  And if so, doesnt that then needed to be used in the dialogue regarding the use for more male names in textbooks?  Maybe a good reason to use more male names is that men need to have that extra help to make things equal?

 

Especially given the changing economy, we need to do a better job of understanding why males don't go to college, to find quality out comes for them if they don't want to college (college shouldn't be and isn't for everybody) (i.e. trade programs), and maybe in some cases re-envision some college to make it more attractive to men.

 

Though, given that on average males out perform females in STEM, I don't think the issue is math books.  Part of the issue might be the larger structure of schools (as I've stated).

[TheGreatBuzz]

"Microaggressions" lead me to microcaring.  

 

 

People need a better sales pitch.

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

No, you didn't clearly explain anything. You asked questions about the differences in the two that had already clearly been answered, and proceeded to ignore those answers. 

 

So I'll try one last time. 

 

The entire reason the event was changed to where whites left campus was due to minority student outrage over the presidential election and them saying they felt excluded due to the results. The solution the school came up with CHANGES an event meant to show diversity through absence into an event that does NOT highlight diversity through absence, but instead encourages the exclusion of a race of people. The original meaning of the event is lost and it's crazy you don't understand the difference and also seemingly refuse to ackowledge what the professor said about the event change, despite me directkly respodning to you with it several times now. 

 

I never said the students don't have a point. I said I agree with the professor, and I think his point is correct and the students' point is incorrect. Why?? Because what they did changes the intent of the original event and the professor was correct in pointing it out. You clearly don't understand that the original intent was to highlight diversity through absence, despite it being said to you a lot now. That original intent is gone with the event change, and the reasons for the change is due to election results and a school appeasing students through exclusion of another race. 

 

As for the math thing, my only guess from that piss poor response is that you're just here to argue for your agenda and not here to actually discuss anything, not surprising seeing as you're agreeing with students who also attempted to do the same.

 All I said was that the word problems themselves being outdated are a bigger issue than the names used, and your response is a stupid strawman. So why are females the only important ones? Don't all students deserve more relevant problems? You see, just like your last question, these questions are not intended to create a dialogue, but rather to incite by twisting intent to make the poster look bad. It's a crappy tactic and one you should be above using.

 

1.  I've stated in this thread several times (different ways) that an implicit or explicit invitation of some group of people based on race to not attend a campus should not be acceptable.

 

The problem is the failure to acknowledge that the University for years, by offering programs off campus for minorities, has been doing that to minorities.  

 

Can you acknowledge that the University taking a day and saying this day we are going to have a program off campus for minorities is an implicit invitation for minorities to not attend campus that day?

 

2.  How does the absence of one race show diversity, but the absence of another race?  If blacks being absent shows diversity, why doesn't the absence of whites show diversity?

 

3.  What you tried to do was deflect one problem by showing another problem and indicating THAT (singular) was the problem, which is an implicit effort to minimize or devalue the problem I was pointing out.  And I called you on it.  You can (well at least I hope you are capable of it) raise one problem without dismissing another one.

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, grego said:

 

 

theres a really good interview of bret weinstein from last week on the rubin report with dave rubin. http://www.rubinreport.com/ (or google it on youtube). lots of background info on the professor, video of the students with weinstein and the college president, a pretty in depth timeline of the events, etc. very insightful. 

 

i also saw another segment on youtube from a guy named matt christiansen (mostly info combined with his opinion and video of the confrontations). i know nothing about the guy, but the segment was informative. 

 

Much better than the piece that zoony posted.  I might even watch Rubin again.  Do you know if he's essentially a one trick pony?

 

I did end up with a few questions/comments:

 

1.  He details what happened to (presumably white) women that went to the building on campus where they were holding the minority part of the day of absence.  What happened to people that just went to campus and didn't attend either event?  He said he was going to be on campus.  What happened to him?  Only about 200 people "left" (I'm not sure if by "left" he means attended the white off campus event, but some may have not gone, but didn't go to campus or everybody else was actually on campus (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article153694734.html)) campus.  Has there been any push back to any of them?

 

2.  Related, I was left wondering what he thought did happen if a minority attended a "white" event or what he thought should happen?

 

2.  It seems like he has had a long term antagonistic relationship with at least female faculty, and she really seems like she's out of control.  It does seem like he's been part of an on-going conversation there (which I was wrong about and is good).

 

3.  I love his idea of conservatism (and agree and have agreed with him).  I disagree with him about whether conservatism is good or bad.  The fact of the matter is that by most measures human societies are better than they have been for a long time.  Do the structures and systems that we have need to be improved?  Yes.  Is there any real reason to believe that there is some huge flaw in them that can really be improved?   I don't see any evidence for that. (And than as part of that, the current "conservative" movement is trying to dismantle some of the systems).

 

4.  I hate Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[grego]

Peter, you are being obtuse. You have to be. The two situations are not the same. One is a voluntary protest. The other is the first thing you mentioned in your post- an implicit, at least, invitation to not attend campus. It's Weinsteins entire reason for protest. 

 

You can't possibly not see that. 

Before I forget, as to what would happen if a white person attended, one did (accidentally, it was a teacher with her class) . I thought it was in rubins interview? 

 

I'll post more later. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

Peter, you are being obtuse. You have to be. The two situations are not the same. One is a voluntary protest. The other is the first thing you mentioned in your post- an implicit, at least, invitation to not attend campus. It's Weinsteins entire reason for protest. 

 

You can't possibly not see that. 

 

So the University holding voluntary on campus activities for whites and voluntary off campus activities for minorities is NOT an implicit invitation for minorities to not come to campus?

 

But

 

The University holding voluntary on campus activities for minorities and voluntary off campus activities for whites is an implicit invitation for whites to not come to campus?

 

Not, I don't honestly understand that.  If I do the same exact thing to two different groups if it is true in one case, it should be true in the other.

 

If the University can create an implicit invitation for whites to not come to campus by holding an off campus activity for whites and on campus activities for minorities, then University doing the same for minorities should create the same implicit invitation for minorities.

[Destino]

44 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

How about math SAT scores?  That's what, High School juniors and seniors?

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-thats-persisted-for-45-years-high-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/

 

(Though based on standardized tests it even starts younger).

 

As to why/how, there is a lot of literature out there on that.  We can start with this:

 

http://www.rewire.org/our-future/teachers-feed-stem-gender-gap/

 

Most of is based on a historical (and implicit) bias that men are better at STEM than women, which results in small differencesin behaviors that result in discrimination against females (i.e. microaggression).

 

(Do you want me to start quoting from peer reviewed published studies like I would in an evolution or climate change thread?)

 

Because out comes still indicate we are actually favoring males.

 

 

You offer up standardized tests as evidence, but ignore classroom grades, where women do better?  You also ignore the portion of standardized tests in which women do better.  You're also once against narrowing down education overall to only those areas which support your narrative. 

 

Also, I would argue that educational outcomes do not show we are favoring males.  Males get poorer grades in high school, are less likely to graduate high school, are less likely to attend college, and are less likely to graduate college.  That's a lot to ignore because on this specific test... and in this narrower focus of study field... and if you only look at this one thing... etc etc.  

 

Is the goal here to help where it's needed or is the goal to help women?  Anyone can cherry pick numbers to make their story sound like truth. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

You offer up standardized tests as evidence, but ignore classroom grades, where women do better?  You also ignore the portion of standardized tests in which women do better.  You're also once against narrowing down education overall to only those areas which support your narrative. 

 

Also, I would argue that educational outcomes do not show we are favoring males.  Males get poorer grades in high school, are less likely to graduate high school, are less likely to attend college, and are less likely to graduate college.  That's a lot to ignore because on this test... and in this field... and if you only look at this one thing... etc etc. 

 

 

The conversation started with a conversation of math textbooks.  I've consistently mentioned STEM.  I've also clearly acknowledged issues for males.

 

I, admittedly, have a bias towards STEM (and have for most of my life) and (as a result) that's where I know more so where I'm more likely to comment on.  I also think that even more so in the future that I think STEM is more likely to result in high paying jobs (though admittedly that might be an issue of my bias) and so think it is more important.  And (as I've already stated) I have daughters and so am biased to issues in this context towards females.

 

Women do not do (significantly) better than men in STEM based on grades in any study I've ever seen.  If you have one that says so, I'd like to see it..

 

The facts are:

 

1.  Historically, males have had advantages built into the system towards them that today we understand as microaggressions and have out performed females.

2.  Today, there is still a STEM gap (by % of students in the fields, by % of outcomes, standardized test scores, and feeling confident with the subject matter).

3.  Those gaps, today, can still be tied to microaggressions against females that still exist in the teaching of STEM.

 

It isn't cherry picking numbers.  There is a reason why people talk about a STEM gap.  It isn't because they are making things up.

 

However, I have not ignored issues faces males.  I've even given one reason I think they are having issues.  If you wish to lead a conversation about the gender gap with respect to things like the college graduation rate, you are welcome to do so, and I will even contribute to it.

 

I started the discussion by talking about math textbooks, and I've regularly references STEM since then.  I've been clear I've been talking about an issue with respect to that aspect.  I never said anything about general educational out comes.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Can you acknowledge that the University taking a day and saying this day we are going to have a program off campus for minorities is an implicit invitation for minorities to not attend campus that day?

 

No. It's not an invitation for minorities to not attend campus that day.

 

It has a clearer and deeper meaning and you know that.

 

I don't feel comfortable saying they should or shouldn't do it. It's their thing, it obviously means something to them, and they think their absence is a statement about issues in society. It's not disruptive (other than not being there for a day), it's not violent, and they haven't demanded anyone else do anything else (until now, hint hint) so who cares? If it makes them feel better in some way, if they think it makes a statement that's important to them, then so be it.

 

 

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

No. It's not an invitation for minorities to not attend campus that day.

 

It has a clearer and deeper meaning and you know that.

 

I don't feel comfortable saying they should or shouldn't do it. It's their thing, it obviously means something to them, and they think their absence is a statement about issues in society. It's not disruptive (other than not being there for a day), it's not violent, and they haven't demanded anyone else do anything else (until now, hint hint) so who cares? If it makes them feel better in some way, if they think it makes a statement that's important to them, then so be it.

 

Here's the problem.  I was talking about the University.  You are talking about "they" and "their" (by which you mean minorities).  Those two things are not the same thing.

 

The (vocal) minorities want the campus police disarmed, the campus police chief fired, Weinstein fired, some campus cop fired, etc

 

If the they and the University were equivalent, then those things would be happening (though they might have legal issues with some of them, including firing Weinstein), but they aren't because the University is NOT equivalent to them.

 

Your same points hold true if I write the same posts about whites this year as their and pretend like the University is the same thing.

 

And realistically, that post would have an even more fundamental problem the same as yours in that it would treat all of the people at the University that are the same race as having the same opinions and view points.  It treats Weinstein the same as the white people that did leave the campus to go to the off campus white event without complaint.

[s0crates]

This is a pretty good lecture by Jonathan Haidt about the conflict between social justice and truth in higher education. I've cued the video to the 47:00 mark because it offers an interesting counterpoint to the argument PeterMP is making about STEM.

 

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Here's the problem.  I was talking about the University.  You are talking about "they" and "their" (by which you mean minorities).  

not quite.

 

 

[PeterMP]

50 minutes ago, s0crates said:

This is a good lecture by Jonathan Haidt about the conflict between social justice and truth in higher education. I've cued the video to the 48.00 mark because it offers an interesting counterpoint to the argument PeterMP is making about STEM.

 

 

If you read the link that I posted for Destino, you would have seen we can go well beyond his graphs to actual behaviors by teachers that likely alter females attraction to STEM like fields and show differences between males and females.

 

Our understanding goes well beyond his graphs.

 

(Do we have people that really are doubting science that partially explains the gender (and also the race) gap in STEM?  Do we have STEM gap deniers?)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/tech-industry-sexism-racism-silicon-valley-study

 

This is all made up.  Unlike women in other industries, women in the tech industry just don't know their place or just like to claim in surveys that they've been unfairly harassed.

 

And the same is true for minorities.

 

47 minutes ago, tshile said:

not quite.

 

 

 

Then who do you mean?

 

Explain.

 

"they think their absence is a statement about issues in society"

 

Who is they and their?

[s0crates]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

If you read the link that I posted for Destino, you would have seen we can go well beyond his graphs to actual behaviors that likely alter females attraction to STEM like fields and show differences between males and females.

 

Our understanding goes well beyond his graphs.

 

(Do we have people that really are doubting science that partially explains the gender (and also the race) gap in STEM?  Do we have STEM gap deniers?)

 

 

I don't doubt we can make changes in the curriculum that alter behavior in such a way that women will be more attracted to STEM. If that's the only proposition you mean to defend, then I'm happy to concede it. I was under the impression you were making broader claims about PC culture and gender outcomes. 

 

Haidt wasn't challenging the STEM gap, he was challenging the idea that sexism is the cause of it, and this is just a synchronous example in a broader argument against a kind of Marxist authoritarianism that exists on the left. His lecture really is worth considering if you're interested in the kind of thing described in the OP. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think Haidt hits the dilemma dead-on when he challenges liberals in academia to choose between the tradition of Mill and the tradition of Marx. If those are the options, then you can put me down for the former.   

[Destino]

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

If you read the link that I posted for Destino, you would have seen we can go well beyond his graphs to actual behaviors by teachers that likely alter females attraction to STEM like fields and show differences between males and females.

Isn't that marketing and product development?  I've spent countless hours of my life looking into how to change meetings to attract different groups of professionals and different demographics for non-profits.  Everything has to be tinkered with to attract different groups, including educational offerings... but that's not called micro aggression anywhere else is it?  I could be wrong. 

 

I have no issue with making STEM more attractive to women.  I have an issue with conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence, claims of championing equality that are ok with male children being disadvantaged, and ridiculousness like concluding that the educational system is intentionally sexist because of the patriarchy. 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

 

Isn't that marketing and product development?  I've spent countless hours of my life looking into how to change meetings to attract different groups of professionals and different demographics for non-profits.  Everything has to be tinkered with to attract different groups, including educational offerings... but that's not called micro aggression anywhere else is it?  I could be wrong. 

 

I have no issue with making STEM more attractive to women.  I have an issue with conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence, claims of championing equality that are ok with male children being disadvantaged, and ridiculousness like concluding that the educational system is intentionally sexist because of the patriarchy. 

 

On 6/5/2017 at 9:09 PM, PeterMP said:

 

"a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority."

 

Writing a textbook is an action.  I'd say the discrimination was indirect and it certainly was unintentional (Do you think that (male white) textbook writers even considered how their writing was affecting females and minorities before the 1970s?) and females are a marginalized group (in math).

 

So yes that was an example of microaggression.  

 

 

I've added some bold, underline, and italics to help you see the differences between what we are talking about.

 

We aren't talking about attracting an audience.  3rd grade students don't get to decide who their teacher is (and for the most part what school they go to).

6 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

I don't doubt we can make changes in the curriculum that alter behavior in such a way that women will be more attracted to STEM. If that's the only proposition you mean to defend, then I'm happy to concede it. I was under the impression you were making broader claims about PC culture and gender outcomes. 

 

Haidt wasn't challenging the STEM gap, he was challenging the idea that sexism is the cause of it, and this is just a synchronous example in a broader argument against a kind of Marxist authoritarianism that exists on the left. His lecture really is worth considering if you're interested in the kind of thing described in the OP. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think Haidt hits the dilemma dead-on when he challenges liberals in academia to choose between the tradition of Mill and the tradition of Marx. If those are the options, then you can put me down for the former.   

 

He seemed to be arguing that men are more drawn to certain fields due to a boost of testosterone at a certain point in development while ignoring things that early on males and females are equally drawn to and good at math even though (many) teachers see male students as being better at math.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Bat wielding Evergreen students try to intimidate chalkman.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/chaos-at-college-in-washington-state-as-leftists-roam-campus-with-bats-assault-trolling-chalker/