#ThingsOnlyWomenWritersHear is trending on Twitter. Apparently it's all based on a research article being reviewed correctly and now feminists are trying to destroy the reviewers career and claim misogyny is keeping women down. Appears to be deliberately set up by the two female researchers.

Mallago · 2017-04-18T15:22:16+00:00

Reminds of the circumcision study by Jenn Bossio- a psychology major- in the university "sex lab" that had the bio explaining they take patriarchy and misogyny into account. They didn't even look at the foreskin itself in the study, yet "concluded" that circumcision has no adverse affect.

Rasalom72 · 2017-04-18T12:36:20+00:00

The moral here seems to be, don't work with/ review things for/ do things for/ etc... professional women.

carmyk · 2017-04-18T17:08:24+00:00

Just for fun, and so you will all understand this can happen on both sides.

I published this piece back in September of 2015. It uses "comparative advantage", a well established concept in Economics, to help understand why women are a minority in STEM fields. I had been using women in STEM to help illustrate the principle of comparative advantage to first year economics students for years.

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/male-female-imbalance-in-stem-comes-down-to-economics/

The argument (and the author) were attacked in the comments section, where I defended it in an (IMO) calm, rational and effective manner. The most outraged commenter ("marnie") also called my university to demand sanctions (nothing came of it) and called and harassed the editor of University Affairs for allowing such an article to appear.

The editor, who in general was terrific (she had encouraged me to write the piece when I first suggested it, etc), I think became intimidated. She sent me an email to suggest I stop replying to the comments, and:

"Why not let others have their say? If you know an economist, preferably female, who would like to support your view in a comment, that would, perhaps, have more weight with the current audience."

The editor and I are both now retired, and, as I said, I have no issues at all with her. I replied to the effect that an argument stands on its own, whether it comes from a man, a woman, or a bunch of monkeys banging on typewriters. This is true, but at the same time the editor was right. We all know a man could stand up and say exactly the same things as Karen Straughn and not be nearly so effective.

Part of the issue, I think, is that many of us do not trust our own ability to evaluate an argument or the evidence used to support it, and so we bring in extra information about the possible biases of the presenter to help us decide on it's truthfulness. It's a problem that afflicts university professors, even though they should be the ones teaching people how to evaluate arguments.

EricAllonde · 2017-04-18T12:37:08+00:00

Seems like the reviewer was sacked as a result. With more details on his review, it does sound like he did a less-than-thorough job of it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/plos-one-ousts-reviewer-editor-after-sexist-peer-review-storm

MagicTampon · 2017-04-19T00:36:53+00:00

Probably a set up. Or, the guy was being sarcastic about a shitty paper.

brainsick__ · 2017-04-18T17:05:32+00:00

How does a trending hash tag on twitter effect the rights of men tho

Comments