Now Women Scientists Prove That Males Are Better in STEM Research

Mentoring and Gender impact in STEM research

STEM Research – When Truth is Sexist

What happens when the graduates in Social Sciences start thinking them as scientists? Well, that gives a hilarious result as many women can become ‘scientists’ that way and amazingly think that they are equal to the males in STEM research. So, when a 2020 study published in Nature Communication proved that women ‘DO NOT’ make good mentors in STEM research and young female STEM graduates are better off going to male researchers for mentorship, these so called ‘scientists’ jumped in vehemently to prove the study wrong and ended up proving otherwise.

When three researchers (two female and one male researcher) of Abu Dhabi’s New York University, namely Bedoor AlShebly, Kinga Makovi and Talal Rahwan found out in their study that women DO NOT make good mentors in STEM research all hell broke loose in the women researcher community and female researchers poured in to prove the research findings wrong, and in a way proved how bad the women scientists really are as I shall show you now –

STEM – Feminism is Science  

This controversy in the field of STEM research has shown us how feminism is controlling the STEM fields and it was evident when many female ‘scientists’ could not give any point other than the feminist ones to prove the research findings wrong. Social media objections by such female scientists many holding PhD degrees in their respective fields was full of crap like – ‘it hurts my feelings’, ‘it will take women backwards’, ‘there is so much of sexism here‘ etc. and I will not even discuss those comments and waste your time. I will show you the objections that were matured and somewhat seemed like logical one to prove my point – why women in STEM should be monitored for meaningful performance.

Publication and Career Bias

STEM Research - Publication and Career Bias

What Christian needed to know that her summary was wrong even if she tried to be sarcastic. Because, the paper didn’t talk about ‘publication and career bias in STEM’. It presented some facts, some data. If the commenter was trying to highlight that because of these ‘biases’, protégés mentored by females do not find success in their career in future when those female mentors are not around, that is really funny. This is because, the same protégés would have done much better when mentored by male scientists, and the researchers have shown the same through data by analysing millions of mentor-protégé pairs. If there existed any career or publication bias in reality then that would have effected a female’s scientific career irrespective of which gender trained her. Hence, comments on sexism etc. does not arise. Christian has made fun of herself by commenting like this.

STEM Research – Woman Leader

Refuting the study by a woman leader in tech

This opposition seems to be logical and tries to bring points from the paper itself than being just a feminist rant. Even though the start was miserable with words like ‘disappointed’, ‘offended’ etc. That proved to be emotional comment rather than comment from a scientist leader. Scientists are not disappointed because some politically correct crap of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ in STEM research needs to be upheld. Her ending is also emotional rather than based on factcheck that women are really performing well as mentors in science. But let’s ignore all of that as she did make some good points.

She mentioned that the research ‘contradicts the current positive experience across the industry’. The problem is, positive experience of whom? Female scientists? If it is, then that is well explained in the paper. Maybe they are enjoying the benefits of contributions of male scientists (basically like parasites) and hence are having ‘positive experience’. The researchers in fact showed by analysing data that protégés do worse when mentored by women. The experience of one researcher or one organization doesn’t matter. The paper also analysed researches done over a century and even informal mentorship. Emotions do not matter here. The fact the she claimed to be a scientist leader and yet had to resort to such types of emotions to prove her point, shows how women can actually be doing in science, and why science is ‘unsafe’ in the hands of such women scientists.

Her comment that ‘conclusions drawn are not supported by claims’, is completely vague and untrue as the paper is not self-contradictory as she tried to claim and her individual experiences are so miniscule to the whole dataset used in the paper that it should not have been mentioned.  

She also mentions that we have Nobel prize for women in STEM and that is a real concern even I have because you never know how those Nobel winning researchers have manipulated the system or whether those prizes were given out just to ensure the politically correct concepts of ‘diversity in STEM’. At least the way female scientists across the globe tried to criticize this study simply because it hurt their ‘feelings’, we have a reason to get concerned about the quality of every female scientist in the world.

Also, Rohini Deshpande in this comment mentioned that she has hired both males and females in scientist roles and her experiences were different. Considering that she is a scientist and a leader, she can just hire all females in scientist roles and see how her organization performs. If they perform equally well as males do, only then her observations will be valid. Otherwise, as long as she continues to hire males, probably those male scientists are taking all the load of scientific research and the females are just increasing the glamour of the organization and they are having ‘positive experience’. I find her claims to be completely contradictory to the experience this female tech CEO had, and this tells me there is surely NO positive experience across the industry by hiring women in Scientific or Technical fields –

So, you see that the female CEO of a tech company calls this diversity propaganda a pure bull$h*t as she herself had suffered by hiring only women and now hires only men. (lol)

STEM Research and Sexism

Woman cries of systematic sexism in tech

Another good logical view from a female researcher but she still wanted to see sexism in this research. Consider this, the study showed a female protégé does better in her future career when she is mentored by a male scientist and NOT by a female scientist. Here we are discussing the protégés’ future performance when the mentor is not around. So, it is dependent on how much did she learn during the mentorship and there is absolutely NO sexism in that. If a woman mentor is not able to perform in STEM fields, then how is that sexism? Maybe they are not good in the field. If you are thinking of women prodigies in STEM, read this story of Shakuntala Devi, a Mathematics Prodigy from India.

Her story will tell you that even she didn’t know how she was doing those maths tricks. It was a god gift to her. Maybe a careful examination of all women prodigies in STEM will tell us different stories like this.

STEM Research – Co-Authorship Vs Mentorship?

Can co-authorship be equated to mentorship?

This is another good comment that looks like from a learned person. Many valid scientific points made without bringing in unnecessary emotion and feminist views that most other female scientists brought. So, it is important we understand all her points.

She (and many others) correctly pointed out that co-authorship can’t be equated to mentorship. But the authors of the paper were careful about that and they have taken a random sample of 167 protégés and asked them a set of questions to understand at what level the senior co-authors were involved in helping the junior researchers, like – writing, research study/design, data analysis/modelling, addressing reviewer comments and selecting a venue for publication. They have also selected protégés as one with less experience at the time of publication of a paper compared to another co-author.

Also, the authors have tried to understand the level at which the senior collaborators were engaged with the protégés. The selected protégés were asked if they received any advice, letter of recommendations, career planning advice or was put through to a important person in the field of research etc. So, all these are duties of mentors and to do a research at this level these are good parameters to check.

So, we need to understand that the researchers didn’t just stick to co-authorship as selection of mentors and they didn’t select all co-authorship papers as a mentor- protégé relationship. So, this opposition from a PhD scholar is also vague.

STEM Research – Social Scientist’s Point

Opposition of the study by a social scientist

Another set of ‘good’ observations and now I shall prove how bad they are even for women scientists in STEM. Her comment says, there is a dearth of female researchers and hence a comparison study is not valid. However, as a possible PhD holder (as she used Dr in her name) she must know that performance in STEM fields doesn’t matter with numbers. I perform worse in a female dominated technical workplace because more often I (read any male) need to make up for the shortcomings of incompetent diversity workforce and waste time to keep my company’s diversity narrative going. But when it comes to individual research where I am not dependent on other coworkers I perform much better compared when working in groups with a lot of dependencies. So, this point coming from a PhD holder shows quality of her PhD degree.

Regarding her point on unrepresentative number of cases, (the researchers finally analyzed 167 randomly chosen protégés to understand career impact), I have seen feminist studies done even on smaller samples or no sample (vague emotion-based studies) and no one had problems. In fact, those studies are well-referred in other well accepted feminist papers.  

Read More about how Feminist studies fool you on my Modern Feminism Series.

I agree to her point, however, that the area of social science is ever fluctuating and hence this field can’t be considered as science in the first place. Calling it ‘science’ only serves the ego of women who get only opportunity to call themselves as ‘scientists’ by getting a degree in ‘Social Sciences’. Even with that observation, it is unfair to comment that women make worse mentors in STEM based on historical perspective because there will be initial gestation period for anyone to adopt to the culture of the field. Also when one’s personal connections matter in selecting the publication venue and connecting with the right people in the field, one initial maturity period needs to be considered.

STEM Research – Political Agenda

Promotion of equality and inclusivity in science a mere political propaganda

Here comes an interesting observation from another PhD who has refuted the study by saying ‘men are over represented in STEM fields’. But what this Doctorate failed to understand that even if men are represented in STEM fields in large number, that can’t hinder a woman’s success if she is capable. Her success in her research area is dependent on her qualities alone rather than someone else. If he had instead proved, that since males are over-represented in greater scientific fields AND they prefer only male researchers and studies done by male researchers – only males make it BIG in STEM, then it would have made some sense to understand why females do not do well in STEM. However, you might have experienced that it is always the other way round. One woman in a group of males, always get much higher attention and praise of everyone around even for doing nothing and just to increasing the glamour of the place.

STEM Research – Hostility Leads to Disparities?

STEM Research - hostility and disparities

A self-explanatory comment, you can just read them and have some fun. Tracie mentioned STEM fields are already hostile to women. However, that doesn’t explain how the same women do better when mentored by men as compared to women. As you can easily see someone is trying to force her opinion on researched findings.

STEM research – How Truth is Suppressed

The point on co-authorship is already discussed earlier here. I will just mention about the scientific impact. It is a set norm in the scientific community to accept the number of citations as scientific impact of a researcher. It certainly is a major factor. Her main concern even in this comment is that this study will perpetuate gender stereotype, but the problem is if women are not doing good in STEM fields, why should we just continue to be politically correct and make the STEM research suffer? Why should male scientists bear the burden of non-performing women in STEM research?

And finally….

STEM Research – Equality is A Feminist Rant

STEM study - why feminists opposed the study

More emotional rant without any scientific evidence or even logical reasoning to prove why the paper and findings were wrong. These women felt bad, so they wanted the paper to be retracted. We can only tell them, girls this is STEM research discussion and social sciences should be kept out of this. Your feelings doesn’t matter here, objective analysis and data interpretation does. Your comments prove, why women in STEM research should be thoroughly scrutinized for their intellect to be there in the first place.

Conclusion

To all women scientists out there – time has come when policymakers scrutinize all your performance and contribution in science. The level of emotional objections and feminist rants we saw from the women scientists, we know exactly why women should not claim that they are equal to men in STEM research. It is time we stop calling social sciences as ‘science’ in the first place because when Science starts having an emotion, and censorship based on an emotional feminist rant, our scientific growth will surely stop. Women can only falsely claim that they were the backbone in NASA’s moon mission or India’s Chandrayaan 2 mission, but when we remove the male scientists from their working groups, we find them not even taking off.

**In case this paper is retracted by Nature Communication, here is a link to the paper on TMF site.

***

Disclaimer – We had to assume the gender of the commenters from their names and photos. Let feminists and social scientists get triggered.

Love TMF?

Follow Us

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

4 comments

  1. Unfortunately it is actually worse in the field of Psychology.

    Which was already the most unscientific, intellectually dishonest, and the easiest to be manipulated of all the sciences before women began to flood into the field.

    The feminists have brought all of their discredited concepts into the field of psychology making far worse.

    Indeed some of the most dishonest in the field are the Black female Social Workers who work in the mental health wards of hospitals. Of which I have personal experience.

    The first thing I told the therapist I’m seeing (a white woman) is to leave her feminism outside her office in the hallway. Or else I would rip to pieces because I do mot tolarate feminism or feminists at all.

    So far she hasn’t dared to attempt indoctrinating me.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.