Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[wraper]

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

Dunno about credibility of research or flimsy evidence, but how many women do you know who are nerds? How many women have hobbies which are technology related? When I started studies in university in 2005, we had only 4 girls among 80+ EE students. I don't think there were so few of them because of discrimination. Application was solely school grade / centralized school exam based. Also competition was extremely low because of general disinterest in EE in Latvia at that time. Basically anyone with half decent grades could get free EE education, IIRC less than 5 people among those actually paid to get in.

[coppice]

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

Dunno about credibility of research or flimsy evidence, but how many women do you know who are nerds? How many women have hobbies which are technology related? When I started studies in university in 2005, we had only 4 girls among 80+ EE students. I don't think there were so few of them because of discrimination. Application was solely school grade / centralized school exam based. Also competition was extremely low because of general disinterest in EE in Latvia at that time. Basically anyone with half decent grades could get free EE education, IIRC less than 5 people among those actually paid to get in.

I don't know many people of either sex who are nerdy. Its an unusual trait in both sexes. However, many women are not averse to a technical education. In most western countries women considerably outnumber men in the life sciences. With most branches of engineering employment in decline, maybe women just aren't dumb enough to enter those fields. The one area of engineering which does keep growing - software - is the area where women have the greatest percentage of jobs. They seem to be making pragmatic choices.

[Cerebus]

On the subject of equality of opportunity, there are other structural obstructions put in the way, often unthinking, based on assumptions about what's appropriate for certain people.

Let's start with an example from my school days at an all boys grammar school. In the third year we had elective subjects. The timetabling of these elections paired subjects, so that if you wanted to do one you were absolutely excluded from the other. Two of these pairings were (German and Biology) and (Art and Woodwork). I'll point out that at the time the majority of innovative academic publishing in Chemistry was in German, so that first forced choice disadvantages anybody who was to go on and do any Biochemistry that required up to date Chemistry knowledge. The other assumption was "linguists and scientists do not mix". The second elective assumes that Art and practical physical construction do not meet - roll on design engineering and sculpture.

Now, a friend was ranting at me about their daughter's school that had similar electives that forced a choice between "domestic science" (basically cooking including food chemistry) and either Physics or Chemistry (I forget exactly which of the two). Better not be interested in industrial food production, Brewing or any other of a number of subjects which would combine cooking and science.

The latter isn't, I must admit, the most terrible restriction ever, but it and the examples from my past, highlight how we narrow children's choices by assumptions about what's good for a certain 'type' of child - where 'type' might be arty, scientific, practical, male or female, rich or poor, black or white. It's easy for an unthinking action by someone involved in a child's education to put barriers in their way, either by forcing inappropriate choices as I've illustrated above or by their own assumptions about what's right for a certain type of child: "Oh no dear, that's not a subject for girls" or "I doubt that a boy from the local council estate is going to become a Doctor or a Lawyer".

[TerraHertz]

We're quite surprised to see is that you don't realise that what you posted were the rabid imaginings of a US Senator, well known to be an anti-communist zealot. What is contained therein has as much basis in reality in the then US political climate as "crisis actors" and "alternative facts" do in the current US political climate.

Here's the actual Communist Manifesto.

Published 1848. Yet you appear to insist that could be the *only* document that could be called a manifesto from the Communist movement. And that it could be relevant to mid 20th century actions. Also, where would you _expect_the document I posted to originate, other than a known anti-communist? An official communist party press release? Seriously?
The rest of your comment makes your position on the political plane very clear. Others can judge the reality of crisis actors and so on for themselves. Naturally it's a misty topic. Try googling 'crisis actor jobs' for starters.
Another amusing google is 'all i want for Christmas is full communism now'  It's just a small example, if you are trying to say there are no Communists now, and even if there were they certainly would not be actually trying to bring Communism to the USA.

Dave is right, that this thread risks veering off into political cat fights. My amusement is because he hoped to avoid that, despite the great amount of evidence that the entirely reasonable early push for female equal economic and political opportunity, was hijacked at an early stage by the globalist/communist arseholes, and deliberately radicalized into a permanent weeping sore of gender conflict, antagonism and social disintegration. With subversion of education at all levels a part of the script. The good professor and her dysfunctional views being one of the results.

And so, focusing on the details and logic of her views, while ignoring and denying the political context of how someone with her views came to exist in her teaching position, is really very much tunnel-vision.

Anyway, that https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm is a useful resource I don't think I'd seen before. Thanks for the link.

[james_s]

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

The thing I have trouble understanding is why some are so offended by the concept of there being genetic differences between the genders that lead to some things appealing more to members of one gender than the other, when looking at a large statistical sample. Being different does not mean differently valued or differently able. Being a member of a group with a lower statistical probability of being interested in a particular subject does not mean a member of that group cannot be interested in that topic or is any less capable. The complementary differences between people of different genders, races, backgrounds, etc is precisely what makes diversity something that is generally beneficial.

People complain about the lack of women in STEM fields but I've never personally met anyone in my field who had any desire to keep women out. On the contrary I was fascinated with engineering and tech long before it was cool, and any sort of talk about computers or engineering was about the most effective girl repellant one could imagine. I'm not sure people of younger generations understand how much hostility existed toward anyone identified as a geek or nerd, it was *not* cool back then, only dweebs were interested in computers. My social group became a lot more diverse once I learned to shut up about geeky stuff and develop (or at least fake) an interest in "normal" stuff like music, movies and sports.

Something I find unfortunate is that I hesitated to even post anything on this topic, and carefully tip-toed through it to ensure I don't say anything that makes it easy for somebody somewhere to read meaning into it that I didn't intend. There are many interesting topics that are difficult to even discuss objectively without somebody getting offended and/or making assumptions about one's philosophical or political views, level of intelligence, etc and the public aspect and permanence of the internet can result in serious repercussions far down the road.

[coppice]

People complain about the lack of women in STEM fields but I've never personally met anyone in my field who had any desire to keep women out.

Its not people in your field who try to discourage women from entering your field. Its mostly women of lesser ability in dead end jobs, and they can be a powerful force discouraging the capable and motivated.

[Cerebus]

The thing I have trouble understanding is why some are so offended by the concept of there being genetic differences between the genders that lead to some things appealing more to members of one gender than the other, when looking at a large statistical sample.

I don't see any evidence of people here being "offended". Sure, among the sociology  and ____ studies types I'm sure there are plenty who are, but that's a group that likes to find something to take offence at. I am unconvinced that there is anything but a smidgeon of decent evidence suggesting any genetic predisposition to STEM/geeky subject preference along sex lines. Any objections I have to such a conclusion are just based on a desire for any conclusions in the matter to be based on scientific rigour not a priori assumptions or woolly thinking. We can leave the woolly thinking to the sociology department.

What I can see, just on first examination, let alone proper analysis, is that social influences clearly do have a big influence on people's vocational choices. At this point I'm going to invoke William of Occam and say that the influence of social forces is so strong as to largely override, and certainly mask, any genetic determiners. Genetics may make a red car look more desirable (the comparison is with ripe fruit) but it's societal and psychological factors that cause young men to believe that it will be an aid to "picking up chicks" and old men to think that it will compensate for their sagging bellies in the reproductive race. The latter are much more powerful determiners of "buying a red sports car" than a genetic preference for red.

My anecdotal evidence is almost the opposite of yours and I've never found it difficult to find women who take, or will take with a tiny bit of encouragement, an interest in all sorts of things that qualify as geeky. An ex-girlfriend who was studying law, and also an avid and excellent knitter, was fascinated by the parallels between computer programs and knitting patterns once I pointed them out. One of the hottest and Gothiest women I've known would sit in the pub, Gothed up, with a pint in one hand, pencil in the other, working through a printout of DNA base pairs picking out the codons (geeky, blokish behaviour) and would later go home, put on predominantly pink, floral pyjamas and go to bed with her teddy bear (girly behaviour).

Often I find that people who think "X (insert geeky subject of your choice) is boring" don't actually think that once you can draw a parallel with something else that they do understand, regardless of their gender. Often it comes down to dull, unimaginative teaching at school, and not an innate antipathy to technical subjects

[basinstreetdesign]

wew laddies, we got some triggered people in here.

Opinions are a hilarious business ...

Wow! 250 replies in less than 72 hours.  And still no fist fights...

But pretty much everything TwoOfFive said applies to me and I agree with it all.

Looking at that list of US uni's is downright depressing.  At one point I wanted so much to go to MIT.  Now I think I may have dodged a bullet (so to speak...) and am so glad I went to U of Waterloo where NOTHING bad happens that makes the papers.  In fact the most news-worthy thing that happened there was when a few eng grads painted "BEER" on the local water tower in the late 1960's...

The female in the video must obviously not be an engineer, or have had much contact with engineers, or have researched her talk with engineers to find out even what connotation we apply to the word "rigour".  Oxford defines it as "The quality of being extremely thorough and careful."  It blows me away that she did not include that connotation.  Her premise is, of course, wrong and that bothers me.  It bothers me if she is in a position of authority and may use her opinion to change or arrange matters at her institution so that the quality of teaching is lowered.  I hope not.

[6PTsocket]

The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.

Another. Never argue with a fool. A passer by will be unable to tell which of you is the fool.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[james_s]

I don't see any evidence of people here being "offended". Sure, among the sociology  and ____ studies types I'm sure there are plenty who are, but that's a group that likes to find something to take offence at. I am unconvinced that there is anything but a smidgeon of decent evidence suggesting any genetic predisposition to STEM/geeky subject preference along sex lines. Any objections I have to such a conclusion are just based on a desire for any conclusions in the matter to be based on scientific rigour not a priori assumptions or woolly thinking. We can leave the woolly thinking to the sociology department.

It's not people here that I'm referring to, but there are plenty of people out there who do take offense.

I also don't pretend to be an authority on such matters, I'm not asserting that there is absolutely a genetic component, rather I'm only saying that such a thing is certainly a possibility and I don't understand why acknowledging that as a possibility would be offensive to some.

Whatever the case I'm all in favor of more women pursuing STEM careers, provided they are actually interested and not just pursuing it because someone told them they should.

[james_s]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

[Brumby]

The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.

Another. Never argue with a fool. A passer by will be unable to tell which of you is the fool.

Then, having dragged you down to their level, they will beat you with experience.

[Ampera]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

What amuses me about it, however, is the people complaining are the same people campaigning for grants to women. Now, I have no problem in colleges giving grants to types of people that are a relative minority in a field. The question of if it is necessary is another debate entirely, but I think it can do good in the right circumstances. The reason I posted that is because it's part of the SJW hypocrisy that I meant to address.

Also VetRanch is pretty cool and he's a guy.

[vodka]

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.

What amuses me about it, however, is the people complaining are the same people campaigning for grants to women. Now, I have no problem in colleges giving grants to types of people that are a relative minority in a field. The question of if it is necessary is another debate entirely, but I think it can do good in the right circumstances. The reason I posted that is because it's part of the SJW hypocrisy that I meant to address.

Also VetRanch is pretty cool and he's a guy.

Grants? I am tired of the positive discrimination because in the long run it doesn't resolve the original troubles else it tends to create new problems and complicate the situation.
Now(Spain), the women take better califications than the men; on the  Acces University Exam takes two point more than the men (5-6) and the Access Stem Careers,at generally, its calification are over 5.
But there are not more 5 women by career. So , What do we do ? We grant to women the free STEM career or we give them the University Degrees by their beautiful face

[GK]

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

That's the real trick here. Mr. Vainaloid here gets you thinking that's what his opponent is saying, thereby constructing an extremely attractive strawman. Don't fall for it.

Well, she writes:

Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.

In contrast to perhaps a doe-eyed numpty smitten with her perceived agenda, who, due to his or her or its own intellectual limitations, chooses to read and interpret such words figuratively as a way of allegedly comprehending the truth or actual noble cause of this woman's thesis, what, exactly, is anyone who is actually capable of basic logical deduction supposed to make of those bold statements if read and interpreted literally? Huh?

She doesn't simply assert that traditional methods of pursuing and ensuring rigor (an absolutely essential quality) in engineering and scientific research, for whatever imagined reason, need to be rethought and revamped, but explicitly states that rigor itself is irredeemable and must be relinquished!

What, pray tell, are the alternatives to rigor supposed to be? How does one actually achieve the reliable and necessary outcomes of a rigorous approach without actually being rigorous? Further into her confused, ideologically-driven mess, she conflates rigor with "complex math" and the upper strata of engineering. She declares that this boogeyman "rigor" thus works to exclude from all levels of engineering those lacking the ability to contribute at the highest and these less able potential engineers are taken for granted to be ethnic minorities and women! Isn't this the bigotry of low expectations?

Gay, straight, black, white, yellow or blue, male female or other, one can work competently and productively at any level in engineering, but not without basic method and rigor!

This woman's mission and logically ridiculous argument against "rigor" and attacks on STEM studies as a whole isn't one that can be dismissed as simply an argument over "semantics". She is ardently persisting with this illogical nonsense and has dug herself in far too deep for this to be the case. I'm incredulous that she could be stupid enough not to see the logical flaws in her arguments herself, and that degree of intellectual dishonesty and denial can only be ideologically driven.

Her agenda here as far as I can see it (regardless of whatever threat she may or may not pose to engineering education) is to infuse her ideological claptrap into areas of academia where it simply does not belong. She is no different in that regard from a religious zealot pushing to teach alternatives to evolution in the science class and her stance against "rigor" in engineering and her obtuse writings and presentations to that effect pretty much occupies the same logical plane. If that isn't a potential recipe for the dumbing down of academic standards in engineering, should by some miracle a monumental conspiracy of stupidity give sway to her thesis, suddenly making her ideas mainstream, then I'm not sure what possibly could be.

There are few good causes that aren't championed by idiots and this woman in practice is probably the antithesis of a feminist. I seriously doubt that there are too many women with successful careers in science and engineering who passionately feel that this particular academic happens to speak for them. From the websites of the institutions that publish her work, academic citations of her contributions are reportedly practically nil.
   

[Ampera]

Grants? I am tired of the positive discrimination because in the long run it doesn't resolve the original troubles else it tends to create new problems and complicate the situation.
Now(Spain), the women take better califications than the men; on the  Acces University Exam takes two point more than the men (5-6) and the Access Stem Careers,at generally, its calification are over 5.
But there are not more 5 women by career. So , What do we do ? We grant to women the free STEM career or we give them the University Degrees by their beautiful face

wut?

So you're saying that women require more qualifications to enter a specific field than men? Are you also saying that, in Spain, women get free college if they look pretty?

That's pretty damn bad, but I assume I am missing some sort of point here.

[tautech]

Nailed it GK. 

My daughter at 20 decided she wanted to fly, well it didn't take long for her to realize she was entering a male dominated career, what's more the plonker at the aviation training school actively sought to make it harder for the fairer sex and as he put it, they only stick at it for a bit then f'off to make babies. 
Actually he in some way did he a favor as the 'rigor' she applied to he studies put her on or near the top student of each subject she did on the way to what she is today.....Airline Captain !

Girls don't need an easy road, they just need the balls to go out and get what 'they' want !

[EEVblog]

Well, she writes:

Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.

Batshit crazy stuff.

This woman's mission and logically ridiculous argument against "rigor" and attacks on STEM studies as a whole isn't one that can be dismissed as simply an argument over "semantics". She is ardently persisting with this illogical nonsense and has dug herself in far too deep for this to be the case. I'm incredulous that she could be stupid enough not to see the logical flaws in her arguments herself, and that degree of intellectual dishonesty and denial can only be ideologically driven.

It makes Purdue engineering a laughing stock. Them being ok with this speaks volumes for that institution.

[Beamin]

I'm going to make an assumption but since this is a discussion, and discussions are best when you hear both sides, that is basically about women, has even one post been made by a woman? Or am I the closest thing to one? This forum is sexist and I'm offended. If only we could a get strong independent woman with purple hair to go to the united nations and take time away from getting humanitarian aide from Africa to do something about this HUGE problem! I can already feel PTSD coming on.

While we are at it how can we solve the crisis that arises from my one karat diamond earings from scratching the screen on my $1000 iPhone ten? Maybe have the slaves, I mean well paid voluntary factory workers, that made it, can get one less bowl of rice a day to pay for an extra coating of screen protector? One less bowl of rice isn't that much when you only get two a day. It's not that bad your body can adapt to 800 calories a day.

[LaserSteve]

Hey Hu,

  About those one Carrot carbon thingies. You as a scientist should realize it's all clever marketing perpetuated by a select few taking advantage of some minor quirk in about 50% of those  humans whose  brain is attracted to sparkly things. A gene we probably  share with Bowerbirds... FFS it's just Carbon....

How many people have to senselessly die in open pit mines to get you easily synthesized "authentic" minerals?

  "They" also are taking advantage of you with marketing that causes some to acquire senseless amounts of inferior shoes that are neither watertight, do not have steel toes, and lead to prolonged back pain as you age? Just so you can fight over who has the most of said hazardous shoes?

  A plain little band of gold. Or carbon steel should suffice, as gold can be synthesized with a linear accelerator the size of CERN, thus causing the creation of high paying STEM jobs and possibly huge arrays of wind turbines to power the plant to make said marking device.
Said Gold or Iron material is also non gender specific.

This way those of us traditionally charged with paying for these useless  trinkets can spend the money on useful things like oscilloscopes, FPGA programmers,  and dietary enhancements like beer and wine. Or taking the children to beneficial events such as soccer or WWF wrestling matches.

If you must continue your addiction, consider Sapphire derived screen protectors... As the plants that make them are highly robotic and create more high paying jobs.

   Artificial Sapphire.  One of the few benefits of this horrible fraud known as "precious" gems. A fraud that has been foisted on mostly men for generations by demands from the gullible.

Latest academic derived mess, genderless pronouns for the English language.  Hu as in (hu)man being one of them.   I see it in academic forumns to refer to student behavior, Hu did this, Hu did that...

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

Sorry Beamin, you know I'm just messing with you. :-)

Steve

[Howardlong]

Let's start with an example from my school days at an all boys grammar school. In the third year we had elective subjects. The timetabling of these elections paired subjects, so that if you wanted to do one you were absolutely excluded from the other. Two of these pairings were (German and Biology) and (Art and Woodwork). I'll point out that at the time the majority of innovative academic publishing in Chemistry was in German, so that first forced choice disadvantages anybody who was to go on and do any Biochemistry that required up to date Chemistry knowledge. The other assumption was "linguists and scientists do not mix". The second elective assumes that Art and practical physical construction do not meet - roll on design engineering and sculpture.

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

[Cerebus]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

If you think if 'bias' as 'push/steer toward a preferred or normal position', then it's always been there, not just in today's terms. The bias is a bad thing, not because it is inherently evil, but because it limits what people can become. In my own experience, the most useful people, the ones who make the greatest contributions to society often defy conventional expectations as to the norm. Vis, the homosexual marathon runner Alan Turing, son of a blacksmith and book binder's apprentice Michael Faraday, mulatto daughter of a boarding house owning 'wise woman' Mary Seacole etc. I'm sure there are many examples others could add.

[coppice]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

At O-level time I wanted to do all the sciences, but scheduling wouldn't allow me to do physics, chemistry and biology, The things that interested me at that time were electronics and micro-biology. So, at 14 I needed to make a choice, dropped biology, and did <insert random subject here> for my remaining O-level. I think these things mostly relate to random scheduling, rather than any plan of coercion.

[Cerebus]

Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.

At O-level time I wanted to do all the sciences, but scheduling wouldn't allow me to do physics, chemistry and biology, The things that interested me at that time were electronics and micro-biology. So, at 14 I needed to make a choice, dropped biology, and did <insert random subject here> for my remaining O-level. I think these things mostly relate to random scheduling, rather than any plan of coercion.

Some will be merely stupidity in arranging the timetable - like arranging it so that you can't take all 3 of the major sciences - some are down to the fact that timetabling is an NP hard problem*, some are down to innate biases about what 'goes together' so that no-one thinks that there's a problem with a timetabling clash between English and the sciences, and that is why science and medical journalism is so universally crap.

*Strictly, yet to be proven, but widely believed.

[EEVblog]

Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.

An idiot aussie politician just stood up in parliament and declared that we need mix sex elite sports.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-senator-linda-reynolds-calls-for-debate-on-mixed-gender-teams-in-australia-s-elite-sports-20180220-p4z0ys.html

What an idiotic idea. If there are no more male and female leagues and women have to compete for a place in a single mix gender elite sports team the result will be practically not a single female player left in the sport any more. All those currently happy and paid and sponsored elite female sports athletes would no longer be able to compete at the elite level any more
We have female and male olympic sports events for a reason.