The appearance of the letter of hundreds of female scientists with the requirements of “ending the rule of men” coincided with a scandal in the world of sociology. Several sociologists have made the publication of deliberately anti-scientific texts in serious publications - only because they spoke on the topic of equality and feminism. This coincidence, oddly enough, is very significant.
Main French newspaper Le Mondeопубликовала440 letter of female scientists (if in the singular the word “scientist” can be picked up by the feminitives “academic”, then in the plural, the chauvinistic Russian language does not allow this), the autoress of which (feminists say “autocats”, but this femininity in Russian is not settled) require an end to male domination in science.
For the sake of simplicity, we will use a less politically correct, but more familiar Russian language without deliberate feminitives. Text translationpublished byon the website of "Inopress".
So, the team of French women historians published an open appeal. The text states that
“In the context of progressive, albeit vulnerable feminism, among men of science, male dominance continues to exist. Today, it is necessary that in this sphere the struggle for equality be united with other forms of struggle, in particular against sexual harassment and against any discrimination, since resistance to this form of domination is just as urgently necessary. ”
The authors cite statistics, of course, in their favor: in the humanities in France, women occupy about half of the teaching positions at the university, but only 29% of them become professors and only 25,5% are among the senior staff. In addition, the salary of women, even at the end of a career, is one thousand euro per month (about 77 thousand rubles) less than that of their male colleagues.
According to the signatories of the letter, women find themselves in a situation of “academic marginalization”, because they have a banal less time for scientific work than men. “Although we know male counterparts - supporters of domestic equality, our society still universally places the responsibility and care for the household - for children, as well as elderly parents - on women,” the text says.
In conclusion, women historians urge their own and other gender colleagues to take upon themselves the following requirements: “to defend the egalitarian representation of women on the recruitment commissions and on the jury of the competitions; to take into account the specific limitations in the female career, to enter the position and take into account the private life of women; fight against “invisibility” in teaching, giving students and students the text of women historians to read; encourage young women to start a scientific career. " There is also a separate wish for women historians: “refuse to participate in specialist groups or in scientific works where almost men are present”.
Indeed, the problem raised does not exist only in French academic science and higher education. There are many women among teachers, but much less among professors and senior management. There are many reasons for this, and, of course, it’s not only that “society places the responsibility on women everywhere”.
Academic science, in contrast to secondary education, is more conservative, the mass arrival of women in this field began later, so the lack of women in leadership may be due to the fact that equality in science is just later thoughtful. Of course, there are women haters among professors, as well as among their female counterparts - man-haters, but radicals are unlikely to make the weather in universities.
Perhaps the main thing that draws on itself in a letter to French women scientists, - they demand no equalityas men of the third class, more than 200 years ago, or suffragette women at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. They require privileges, special attitude and special "promotion" - both the works of women scientists among students and young graduates. Positive discrimination is very common in the United States, in the homeland of political correctness, and, increasingly, in Europe, but it rarely leads to positive phenomena.
When a chauvinistic man does not allow a woman to become a professor, she can complain to colleagues, go to another university, and even sue them - the laws on gender discrimination in France are quite severe. But when a woman becomes a professor simply because she is a woman, without a sufficient level of professionalism, it is no better. Any gender, national and other quotas reduce the level of competition, and therefore the quality and level of knowledge.
Therefore, the harm from positive discrimination is at least not less than from traditional. And the main question is whether the signatories understand this “440 letters”?
Interestingly, the letter appeared on the background of large-scale academic scandal in American sociology. Three scientists, Ph.D. James Lindsay, Associate Professor Peter Bogossian and Helen Plakrous (let’s emphasize, this is a woman!), For several months “troll” scientific journals, sending obviously antiscientific texts on feminism into peer-reviewed journals. At the time they confessed to the social experiment, seven of the manuscripts they sent to different editions of 20 were accepted (four were published, three were awaiting publication), another seven were under consideration and only six were rejected! As a result, Feminist Theory magazine published an article that called for banning artificial intelligence, because it is created by white men, which means that the product will also be chauvinistic and dangerous for women's equality.
Gender, Place & Culture magazine posted a text in which men were compared with dogs and encouraged to use the same methods for their "training" as for dogs. “This is a wonderful job. It is incredibly innovative, rich in analysis and very well written, given the diversity of literature and theoretical issues that are submitted for discussion, "-it was saidin reviews.
But the most significant article went to the Affilia publication. In theory, the name should have led an educated person to suspicion. The text was titled Feminist Mein Kampf.
The authors did not write anything at all themselves, and using the cut-and-paste method replaced the references to the Nazi party with feminists, and the enemies of the nation with chauvinist men. “The reviewers support the work and note that it has the potential to create an important dialogue among social workers and researchers of feminism,” the article said.
No one suspected anything until Lindsay, Bogossian and Plakrous confessed. In conclusion of their “appreciative article,” the authors wrote that they did it because “they believe in universities, in classical education, in the pursuit of scientific knowledge and in the importance of social justice”. But for some reason it is hard to believe that the deceived feminists will hear them and not be cursed forever.
Of course, the world is changing in the direction of greater equality - including gender. But when the struggle for someone’s rights turns into campaigning, greater social success, unfortunately, is achieved by those who take the lead of campaigning, and not those who try to call for common sense.