Women given 100% higher preference than men for career advancement in scientific community

(NaturalNews) It's not the narrative that many progressive pundits in the mainstream media like to acknowledge, but it nevertheless appears to be true: Women are not widely disparaged or discriminated against in the workplace.

According to the Washington Post, this is becoming more and more true, especially in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These fields are often held up as being "men only" by progressives arguing that women should be treated differently; such people are usually lobbying for women to be treated in ways that give them greater advantages over their male counterparts.

The Post reported:

Is science finally becoming friendlier to women?

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci think so. As the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, they have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published [recently] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments.

In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men.

Trend for a quarter-century has been more women in college

"It is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science," the researchers declared.

Of course, you probably won't hear that from, say, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, potential 2016 Democratic candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or other class- and gender warriors who lie about these developments in order to pad their own power base.

The researchers' findings are based on a survey of 873 faculty members from 371 universities and institutions of higher learning around the country, the Post noted. In a string of experiments, evaluators were given profiles of fictional job candidates and then asked to rank them based on whom they believed to be most qualified for an assistant professorship in biology, engineering, economics and psychology. In almost every case, researchers said, female candidates were likely to be ranked higher, regardless of lifestyle, area of expertise and the evaluators' field of research. One exception was found: there was no gender bias when it came to male economists.

"At one point we turned to each other while we were coding email responses from faculty across the U.S. and said we hoped that the large preference for women applicants over identically qualified men applicants would slow down because it seemed too large to be believed!" Williams wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. "It never did slow down, and the final tally was roughly a 2 to 1 preference. So, we were surprised."

The results of the study really should not have surprised the Cornell researchers. For years now, college enrollments have disproportionately favored women. In 2006, The New York Times reported that women had been in the majority on college campuses for 25 years.

Victimhood status does not equal actual accomplishment

Fast forward to 2014; the Pew Research Center published a study that found that females were continuing to enroll in institutes of higher learning at higher rates than men, especially Hispanic and black women.

What is the reason for the narrative that "evil white men" are dominating the top fields? Or is it just that they're dominating certain fields, like finance? And if so, why is that automatically assumed to be a bad thing or the result of purposefully shunning of other "qualified women?" Are these males not qualified? How many founded their companies and then stayed on to run them?

Not all women buy into this victimhood status. Carly Fiorina certainly doesn't; the potential 2016 GOP presidential contender guided Hewlett Packard through the worst tech recession in a generation while creating jobs.

She's just one of many current and future examples, as evidenced by the Cornell study.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.human.cornell.edu/hd/ciws/index.cfm

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abstract

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.nationalreview.com