Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science about Hubble Telescope

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 [7]. 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 [8], 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 [4] 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.

Women are clearly underperforming at the top level of math contests, are hopelessly outgunned at chess, snooker, tennis, and even fashion designing, and cooking.

“It’s fascinating and disturbing,”

A tiny, statistically almost insignificant difference in male and female success in applications is disturbing.

says Yale University astronomer Meg Urry, who formerly led the Hubble proposal review committee for several years and admitted to frustration that some of the results occurred during her tenure. “I made a lot of efforts to have women on the review committees,

But padding the committee with quota women is not disturbing.  Megan Urry unashamedly pushes gender politics in Astronomy.

and during the review I spent time listening to the deliberations of each panel. I never heard anything that struck me as discrimination — and my antennae are definitely tuned for such things —

I bet her antennas are tuned to make absolutely sure that women are favored, that there is only discrimination against men. Megan Urry pushes gender politics in Astronomy. Urry’s feminists quota appointees massaged the yearly Hubble usage towards equal use for unequal qualification. But statistical analysis compounding many years found that, men’s Hubble applications still get selected slightly more often in spite of the women biased committee.

so it’s clear the bias is very subtle, and that both men and women are biased.” [SciAm]

It is a dogma, it is a given: Whenever women fare worse, it is a bias against women.

The misleading headline

is corrected in some small print far down, saying that the effect is very small and statistically insignificant in any single year: “You can kind of explain it away as just sampling statistics in any given cycle, but it happens every year” [SciAm]. The correct headline would read:

Women’s Hubble Telescope Applications are approved with virtually equal frequency,
due to quota women in the selection committee

We are showing the opposite,  that a bias against men causes lower qualified women to have almost the same outcome as men.

1. Women applicants like Megan Urry who are not passionate about physics since Kindergarten, but whose exposure to physics started in college (by Megan Urry’s own confession) [Urry],
2. Women who might not be as hard working as their male counterparts [Warren Farrell]. 
3. Women who are underrepresented among the over 150 IQ [Wikipedia]
4. and even more so in extreme math ability.

The truth is opposite: We need to apply even more bias against men to guarantee equal outcomes in spite of unequal talent,interest, and effort.

Megan Urry is the head of Yale Physics department. Even if she likely made it as a quota token women, she certainly is a math and statistics whiz. But feminist gender un-science demands the un-scientific logic of Pope Urban VIII who refused to look at Galileo’s proofs

Megan Urry is unable to consider the hypothesis that men and women in Physics are different.  Even though Megan Urry herself is different from male scientists!

I bet that male University Physics chairs were born scientists, liked science classes in high school, had played with batteries, never bombed a college physics test in spectacular fashion, never got Astronomy internships with zero qualifications, and did not get into grad school without formal qualifications

She wasn’t a born scientist. In high school, science classes weren’t her favorite. […] Urry had never played with batteries; she had no intuitive grasp of how electricity and magnetism behave. She bombed a test in spectacular fashion […] She spent the summer after her junior year as an intern at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, in Virginia. The freshly minted PhD who hired her said that what distinguished her application was that she played the violin; he did, too! Then he mentioned the terms “RA” and “dec”—shorthand for “right ascension” and “declination,” which are to an astronomer what latitude and longitude are to a geographer. She asked what they meant. Somehow he’d neglected to notice that his new hire had no background in astronomy. […] Because she lacked a formal background in the subject, most graduate programs in astronomy wouldn’t accept her. She settled for physics, and chose Johns Hopkins.[Megan Urry pushes gender politics in Astronomy]

Political correctness is, by definition, anti scientific, based on inviolable dogma that it must not allow sexist, nor racist hypotheses.  Comparison of male physicists with wolves, vs.. female human beings is ok, of course.

[Urry] knew Tinsley was a woman in science. As Urry would later write, “I felt the kind of relief that a child raised by wolves must feel when she first sees a human being.”  [Urry]

 

 

In an ideal world, the question wouldn’t matter. In an ideal world, Urry wouldn’t have been the first woman to chair Yale’s Department of Physics;  she would have been a department chair, period.*

In an ideal world, most likely Urry would not have become department head. As we have pointed out, the top of the tops of IQ and mathematical ability is most likely taken by a man, who also tends to work harder and longer hours [Warren Farrell]

She wouldn’t have received the Women in Space Science Award from Chicago’s Adler Planetarium, wouldn’t have been an American Women in Science Fellow.

In an ideal world,

1. there either would be no sexist women only awards. Or
2. there would be no taboo to have men only clubs, where men can be men without getting slapped with harassment law suits.
3. Quota Women would not be uppity, rather be grateful that they get special coddling

She wouldn’t have featured prominently in a 2013 New York Times Magazine article titled “Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?”

In a real world, Scientific American would give the answer, better then I did. Women have inherently less interest, passion, and extreme top talent in STEM.

"Why are there not less women in science?". And, especially,  "How to get more MEN into science", before Japan, India, China totally overtake the USA.

Women who never were interested in science are lured, and some become a success, as Megan Urry. Even without quotas and special coddling she would perform well at a good University. it Let us do the same to young men, too.

Where are men’s rights activists trying to INCREASE the gender gap? By promoting top male talent, by making feminized schools more amenable to boys, by luring boys who lack interest for science from other useless humanity fields into engineering and physics? 

In a real world Time magazine would ask "why are there so many male suicides", "why did Robbin Williams lose 30 Million dollars in divorces, and later commit suicide", "Why are there still so many women paying alimony to men", "Why 99% of women executed in the US male?",  "Why did we fiddle IQ tests so females seem to have the same IQ as males", "Why male have better spatial talents", or "why do we have women quotas when top talent is mostly male, as a consequences of male greater variance in IQ and other talents"

In an ideal world, she would simply be one of the more influential astronomers of her generation, and she wouldn’t be pursuing what she calls “a second career” devoted to “the women thing.”

In a real world we would have men being admired for devoting their career to men’s issues like Warren Farrell.

In a real world we would not have official junk science hiding in academia, women’s studies, "race does not exist" fantasies, and more.

In a real world, women world wide would not unite to prevent any men’s studies department, unless dominated by feminists

But Meg Urry long ago learned that she doesn’t live in an ideal world. [Urry]