The disproportionate outrage directed at this paper does a huge disservice to the credibility of the scientific community. Shameful display of over the top “virtue signaling” with the defining hallmarks of mob suppression of nonconformist views rather than scientific concerns
— dave arthur (@Poison_Oyster) November 19, 2020
Thanks "Dave". It's not virtue signalling if it literally damages our careers and the future of science. But as a "dave" maybe this doesn't apply to you
— Dr Kelly Dombroski (@DombroskiKelly) November 19, 2020
"Literally damages our careers"? What the flying fuck does a useless press release regurgitator like Miss Dombroski know about "damaged careers"? Was she on a blacklist of scientists with DoublePlusUnGood interepretations of climate data? Did she get fired for attending a peaceful protest like that Chicago real estate girl? Or for opposing a different protest like that economist at the University of Chicago or the psychology professor in Michigan, or almost happened to Prof. Jacobson at Cornell? What about what happened to Stephen Lamonby or Professor Greg Patton? You know absolutely zero about damaged careers over beliefs that are based in the same fundamental realities that your ilk are trying to suppress, then you try to claim woe is me when scientific research might indicate you aren't very talented and then try a "you aren't persecuted and wouldn't understand" lie. You make me absolutely sick.
Dombroski is the reason so many men cheer when women got smacked in old movies.
Now to go into the weeds, the argument against this paper is wholly that they don't like the conclusion: that in order to get more women into academia, the current crop of female academics need to hit the road, Jack...er...Jill. Without useless boobs (heh) like Dombroski in their way, the female GenZ or whatever-the-hell-they-are coming through primary and secondary schools today have a much better chance of learning from their wisened male professors and becoming experts themselves in the future. So a lot of this is your basic rent-seeking: just like that Hillary Clinton/Sarah Palin SNL sketch, Dombroski doesn't want more women in science (ie. the "future of science"): she wants her to be in science ("damages careers"). But if that's going to be her argument, she'd better just make it.
It's not a bad argument to make, either: "a select group of us are women in science who today have good jobs and want to keep them, and if that means having fewer women in science in 40 years then I accept that tradeoff". Miss Dombroski doesn't want to make that claim, though: damages the whole "girrrrllpower" bonafides.
They counter, of course, that it wasn't that the paper had a factually true but politically unpopular conclusion, but instead it was revoked because the "peer review" wasn't strong enough for it. Don't believe them. For one, it's a social science paper and those are pretty much all meaningless to begin with. It's "deeply methodologically flawed" you see. No kidding! They all are! You could just add this to the pile of "scientific" papers that, when you try to reproduce them, either product none of the results they promised or the opposite ones.
Meanwhile "peer review" is just a shiny gloss they put over papers such as this to keep the funding flowing. As Mark Steyn noted over a decade ago, 'peer review' is just another example of the Iowhawk principle. In the TV show Yes, Minister it was routinely observed that you can get the results to any inquiry you like just by carefully choosing who the independent arbiters are. I'm sure if you dug around you could find loads of conservative economists able to peer review...say...a retarded piece of fake science called "Enacting a Postcapitalist Politics through the Sites and Practices of Life’s Work" and find serious methodological flaws. At the very least, if you're hungry there's some nice word salad for you to eat:
While reading these places for possibility we are also inspired by the idea that “hegemony is secured—or might be frayed—in the overlapping spaces where home and work, the public and private, state and society converge”
Oh it gets even better:
Between 2006 and 2012, I (Kelly) spent a total of thirteen months researching the daily lives of mothers in the city of Xining. I was interested in mapping their diverse economic practices in various spaces of work and care. I began in my own neighborhood, on the east side of the city. Outside my apartment, in the semipublic courtyard my family and I shared with some three hundred other families, I observed how grandmothers provisioned and cared for their households. Some dried chilies on large tarpaulins in public spaces, others prepared large clay jars of paocai pickles with the help of neighbors, still others grew herbs in small gardens they had staked out in the public courtyard. People sat outside, sorting and preparing vegetables with the help of friends, knitting children’s clothing, caring for toddlers and preschool children, and (sometimes) gambling over mah-jongg. In all this, grandmothers, grandfathers, and others performed productive and reproductive labor in a space that was neither public nor private.
Besides being even less believable than Sean Penn's depiction of Baghad, here's a helpful reminder that a peer reviewer should have caught: Red China is a communist country run by the Chinese Politburo! It's all CCP-owned space. That's what communism means.
Also, how much taxpayer money was wasted for this study which basically says "different people perform different tasks both in a structured work environment and at home"?
Except this isn't really what happened here, is it? Papers passing peer review and getting published aren't supposed to be retracted until actual reproducibility fails. If you re-run all the same data and get a different result, or discover that there's a better range of data to capture what they are after (after all, the only study they did was pull a bunch of information from existing databases, generate some formulas, and analyze the results: no actual data was collected) and show that this refinement changes the results, then you've got something.This is actually a great reminder that the system of science fundamentally works. Sure, bad papers can pass peer review and are published, but the authors and journal here are undoubtedly feeling the massive pressure of the scientific community to correct these faulty assertions.
— Todd M. Brusko (@Bruskolab) November 19, 2020
