I was excited to hear that Harvard Business School had decreased the gender gap in performance, until I heard they did so by pressuring professors to use grade analyzing tools that urge them to raise the grades of students based only on being female to match the students who were male (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?hp&_r=2&). This is the very opposite of the goals of feminism.

What interested me more was that many commenting on this finding in blogs across the web only took notice of the "findings" that HBS had an "unspoken" culture favoring males. Apparently not only was it wrong for males to outperform in business courses of study, but it was wrong to observe this... secretly, even.

But where is the outrage towards programs that favor women? One senior professor in my college's communications department told me once, "Generally women are much better at advertising than men these days. They definitely do better in my classes." What prompted this statement? I had inquired as to why there were significantly more women in my major. He followed up his comments saying, "They're much better at understanding the curriculum because they've usually spent a lot more time being creative. That aesthetic sense they gained scrapbooking as little girls doesn't exist in a lot of guys. They're much more aware of trends related to public perceptions, perhaps because of having to be keenly aware to trends in fashion and style." (Because that definitely translates to understanding statistics...)

Why is it that entire universities reform when a program seems to benefit the learnings and experience of men, seeing better results from men, even if this is not at all spoken about... but when this is spoken openly about a program with educators predisposed to this line of thinking slanted in favor of women, nobody bats an eyelash?