Hubble telescope time preferentially goes to men.
Female-led proposals to use the in-demand Hubble telescope are less likely to be selected." Scientific American claims this in the midst of a huge section of Junk Diversity Science which has been utterly debunked elsewhere.
An internal Hubble study1 found that in each of the past 11 observation proposal cycles, applications led by male principal investigators had a higher success rate than those led by women. Women submit roughly 25% of proposals for Hubble telescope observing time. [SciAm]
Un-Scientific American lends credibility to junk diversity and gender science nonsense, by interspersing junk diversity propaganda among true natural science articles.
Un-Scientific American misleads their readers who think their gender baiting is on par with real science.
This confounding of junk gender science with true natural science is very serious. This is why after years of study even we need serious deprogramming from the politically correct cultural Marxist lies that impressible children, adolescents and adults are constantly told by school books and biased un-scientific journals like Scientific American!
Scientific American’s mixing of real natural science with politically motivated unscientific falsified junk science like gender, domestic violence, race and iq issues aspires to permanently poison the minds of young and old with feminist and politically correct hate ideology.
All the titles on our "Unscientific American" cover are true Junk Diversity Science articles,
we could not have made this up.
The head of a science department of a major research University confirmed to us, in private, that female scientists generally less innovative and talented then their male counterparts . Implicit quotas demand hiring and promoting women who don’t meet the requirements men would be measured up to. Quotas guarantee that the rare woman with sufficient talent will be snatched away for an even more prestigious job, always rising to her level of incompetence. Aware of Larry Summer’s dismissal , our department head refuses to be identified.
"Scientific American used to be a great magazine but like any publishing venture headquartered in New York, it has gradually drifted into liberal never-never-land." [UnScientific American]
Men and women are equal by dogmatic fiat
Did Megan Urry control her statistics for yearly working hours, life time interest in science, years experience, work invested in the proposal, IQ, math talent of the applying scientists?
We wager a bet that the average male physics proposal writer, more so a Ivy League department chair, did not flunk their first physics exams in college, like Megan Urry herself and was interested in physics since tender age of 6, unlike Megan Urry  and other female applicants. Megan Urry (of course) ignores even the possibility that male and female applicants might be intrinsically different in some way. Larry Summers was a victim of telling such truth that there is a dearth of women in the top talent for science and math.
In spite of IQ tests having been manipulated to elevate female IQ to the same level as males [Wikipedia], there are twice as many men with IQ over 150: Men: either very clever or really stupid [Wikipedia] because of greater male variance on IQ and most other traits.