Noah Carl ponders wokeness and women:
So, why would the influx of women into academia have contributed to its leftward shift, and to the rise of woke activism in particular? As the psychologist Cory Clark notes, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men, and consistently more supportive of censorship. Compared to men, they’re more likely to say: that hate speech is violence; that it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker; that controversial scientific findings should be censored; that people need to be more careful about the language they use; and that it should be illegal to say offensive things about minorities…
Women are disproportionately represented in Grievance Studies (i.e., disciplines like Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory), which are often little more than a vehicle for left-wing activism… Almost 80% of bachelor’s degrees in “Ethnic, Gender, and Cultural Studies” are awarded to women… [Academia’s left-wing skew] appears to be greater among female academics than among male ones. In a 2016 paper, Mitchell Langbert and colleagues analysed voter registration data on approximately 4,000 US academics. As the table below indicates, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was “only” 9:1 among men, but it was almost 25:1 among women.
Thanks to Mark Horowitz and colleagues, we also have detailed surveys from two of the most left-leaning disciplines: sociology and anthropology. The table below shows the proportion of male versus female sociologists (from a sample of 479) who agreed and disagreed with various items. Compared to men, women were more likely to say that “Sociology should be both a scientific and moral enterprise,” and that “Sociology should analyse and transcend oppression.” They were less likely to say that “More political conservatives would benefit [the] discipline,” and that “Advocacy and research should be separate for objectivity.”
Needless to say, there are links and charts aplenty.
Update, via the comments, which you’re reading of course:
Some ladies of the left aren’t happy about Mr Carl’s article. Apparently, he could only have written it because he’s “intimidated by intelligent women.” At least, according to a woman who seemingly didn’t find it necessary to read the piece that she’s dismissing, or to rebut any of its particulars, even in passing. As intelligent women do, of course. I’ve yet to see a substantive reply. So far, there’s been lots of glib, self-flattering toss about how noticing certain things can only be explained by a fear of women, or a hatred of them, some rather dishonest attempts at reputational sabotage, and rumblings about the alleged “fragility” of the “straight white male.”
There’s something almost funny about woke ladies getting all pissy and indignant about tables of statistics and things that one might reasonably infer from them, not least about woke ladies, and then behaving in precisely the kinds of ways that the article they dislike suggests is quite common among woke ladies.
It is, I think, odd how Ms Woods, our New Statesman and Guardian contributor, a woman who clearly wants us to know how terribly clever she is, doesn’t address anything – anything at all - in the article that so offends her. Instead, she resorts to glib dismissal, as if the evidence presented, all of it, were somehow irrelevant, while assigning cartoonish motives to the man who compiled it. Did anyone here read Mr Carl’s article and think, “Gosh, that sounds very emotional and motivated by a fear or hatred of women”?
Likewise, Ms Parkinson, who declares her pronouns and wishes us to know how terribly clever she is, indulges in the same glib and self-satisfied dismissal while carefully avoiding any attempt to address any of the particulars that she apparently finds objectionable. And so, we get another accusation of emotional motives for which no evidence is presented, as if that were sufficient, a job well done. But which party sounds more irrational and prejudiced, more emotionally agitated by facts and tables of statistics? And more dismissive of the other sex, with its “straight white male fragility”?
Again, lefties project.