Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: how is gay babby formed?

Written By: - Date published: 7:20 pm, November 23rd, 2012 - 83 comments
Categories: gay rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

The Government Administration Committee is hearing submissions on the Marriage Equality Bill.  Ostensibly the purpose is to gather the views of the nation in order to make judgements on how the Bill might move forward to become New Zealand law.

On the other hand, it may just be about Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi MP delivering a fantastic performance art piece on the ludicrously blinkered worldviews of [some of] the Bill’s opponents.

First there’s his asking a same-sex couple “who would be the husband and who would be the wife” if they got married.  Props to the couple for being able to field a witty answer, as I know overcoming one’s natural reaction of standing there flabberghasted must have been difficult.

Earth to Mr Bakshi:  They’d both be husbands.  Or they could both be wives.  Or they might call each other “partner” or “spouse” (if the Bill passes; currently I understand civilly-unioned folk can’t use the term legally).

If, as I do somewhat suspect, Mr Bakshi was asking who would take the working / driving / lightbulb changing / penis-insertion role, and who would take the cooking / cleaning / screaming at tiny spiders / penis-envelopment role … well, I think that’s just a little personal for a Select Committee hearing, don’t you?

Then he saw fit to ask Jordan Carter – who in a spirit of encouraging empathy had asked the Committee to consider a role-reversal situation – where babies would come from if everyone turned gay.

Let’s add into the mix the fact that previously, he’d informed an anti-equality protest that the majority of National MPs voted against the Bill – which they didn’t.

The options are this:  Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is a complete embarrassment of a human being, someone who really thinks same-sex couples are aliens from another planet whose ways Are Not Our Ways, and also a liar;

or Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is a brilliant satirical performance artist.

My faith in humanity begs me to go with the latter; my brain says nope.

83 comments on “Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: how is gay babby formed? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Zorr 1
    23 November 2012 at 7:39 pm

    There is one facet that he left out that maybe he should pursue because then he could potentially get all those Step-Daddy National MPs on his side.

    I mean, what if a couple of men decided to get married and raise a child – since men form most of the domestic violence/child abuse statistics, wouldn’t that mean that incidences of abuse would double? Won’t anyone think of the children!

    *clutches pearls*

    • KJT 1.1
      23 November 2012 at 9:17 pm

      Well no.
      They did some research in the USA which found that children of gay parents ended up as well adjusted on average as any other kids.
      And just for the rednecks. Their kids were no more likely to grow up gay than anyone else’s.

      It is not catching! 🙂

  2. Rogue Trooper 2
    23 November 2012 at 7:57 pm

    nope

  3. karol 3
    23 November 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Damn, life must be really hard for those heterosexual couples.  What do they do if the wife is absent when wifely things need doing & ditto for those husbandly things?

    Do the husbands go hungry, and the wives sit around in the dark cos no-ones there to change the lightbulbs?

    As for the rest of the husbandly and wifely duties…. must be damn hard being left alone for too long!

    • QoT 3.1
      23 November 2012 at 9:00 pm

      Well, wifeless husbands are obviously Strong Manly Men who can go hunt wild mammoth for their dinner if need be. And it’s not a problem for husbandless wives to sit in the dark, because without a man around to serve they don’t have anything to do anyway. #theworldaccordingtoBakshi

  4. karol 4
    23 November 2012 at 9:15 pm

    We call also apply that excellent logic to everything else:

    If everyone in the world was…..  wh** would….?

    If everyone in the world was rich, who would drive the rubbish trucks?

    If everyone in the world had 2 babies, where would they all live?

    If everyone in the world was an MP, who would there be to lie to?

    If everyone in the world was a journalist, who would write the stories about Duncan Garner?

     

    • Dr Terry 4.1
      24 November 2012 at 9:51 am

      This idiot poses the question, “Where would babies come from if everyone turned gay?” What a nonsensical hypothesis! There is no “if” about it, as this cannot and will not happen. Should there be “fewer” babies it hardly matters in a world already over-populated.

      • bbfloyd 4.1.1
        25 November 2012 at 1:58 pm

        Actually, it would be a blessing if there was a whole generation of gays born…

        The technology to create pregnancy has been around for decades, and the high likelyhood of the vast majority choosing only one, or two children to have would have a releiving effect on planetary recourses…

        As well as freeing up exponentially greater “thinking” time, which would inevitably lead to greater progress toward truly mature solutions to long standing social/technical problems….

        Possibly even allow for a greater appreciation for the benifits of true egalitarian democracy, once the room for thought has been entrenched……

        So I’m presented with two possibilities…..One.. Johnny sparkles was(for whatever reason) thinking of mr Bakshi when he had his “batshit” moment…….

        Or two…. mr Bakshi’s name will go down in the annuls of history as the genius who introduced the concepts that saved humanity from imploding…..

        Decisions, decisions……

        • Populuxe1 4.1.1.1
          25 November 2012 at 2:41 pm

          In most developed countries a maximum of two children is pretty much the norm anyway – so I’m not entirely sure what your point is.

          • karol 4.1.1.1.1
            25 November 2012 at 6:07 pm

            I was just challenging the (implicit) logic that that the purpose of humans is to reproduce, therefore everyone should have children.

            I was talking about 2 children per person – that would double the world population each generation & over-load the planet pretty quickly, threatening the survival a large proportion of the species, if not all humans.

  5. KJT 5
    23 November 2012 at 9:21 pm

    Seriously though. When are some people going to realise that we have had the “age of enlightenment”.

    A few centuries ago now.

    Long past time to get rid of medieval religious attitudes.

    • karol 5.1
      23 November 2012 at 9:37 pm

      Actually, the kind of logic he’s using is as much the legacy of enlightenment thinking as being medieval European: dividing and classifying the world into categories and binary oppositions such as man/woman; gay/straight etc.

      • KJT 5.1.1
        23 November 2012 at 10:27 pm

        You may be right. I was thinking of the rise of science over superstition.

      • kiwi_prometheus 5.1.2
        24 November 2012 at 12:00 pm

        “binary oppositions”

        Spouting the usual failed deconstructionist nonsense again, Karol.

        “using is as much the legacy of enlightenment thinking”

        Here we go, the antiscience Irrationalist mumbo jumbo from Team Feminists.

        After all Karol’s Feminism is centered in the Uni English Literature Department where they spend their time and tax payer money “deconstructing” Jane Austen’s Northhanger Abby and engage in other forms of self fingering pedantry. This has spilled over into the Social “Sciences”, which produces dodgy “research” that surprise, surprise, is in strict keeping with Feminist “theory”.

        My personal favourite at the moment is the crazy Feminist claim that Newtons Laws actually form a “rape manual!”

        Feminist LOVE crying “rape!”.

        LOL, what a wonderful contribution Feminists are making to our civilisation’s knowledge.

        Little wonder they spend their time and energy trying to take down science and academic standards.
        Much like their sworn enemy Team Jesus really.

        • QoT 5.1.2.1
          24 November 2012 at 12:46 pm

          My personal favourite at the moment is the crazy Feminist claim that Newtons Laws actually form a “rape manual!”

          Still stuck on this key message from Men’s Rights manual, k_p? It’s from 1986. The author retracted it. And it’s clear you don’t understand the actual point she was making anyway.

          • kiwi_prometheus 5.1.2.1.1
            24 November 2012 at 1:06 pm

            “And it’s clear you don’t understand the actual point she was making anyway.”

            The whole point of Deconstructionism is that nobody is suppose to be able to understand anyone else anyway, remember?

            Its complete gibberish of course and allows Feminist cranks like Ms Harding to talk shit about men and get paid tax payer money for it.

            “The author retracted it. ”

            You mean Harding did? If so, good.

            ” It’s from 1986.”

            So?

            • QoT 5.1.2.1.1.1
              24 November 2012 at 1:08 pm

              The whole point of Deconstructionism

              [citation needed]

              get paid tax payer money for it.

              [citation needed]

              You mean Harding did?

              How is Google formed?

        • One Tāne Huna 5.1.2.2
          24 November 2012 at 1:10 pm

          Dear Lord,

          To hear the cries of the privileged is a heavy burden.

          Please help Kiwi Prometheus overcome his fear and quit his feeble whining.

          Yours faithfully,

          Amen.

          OAB.

        • Rogue Trooper 5.1.2.3
          24 November 2012 at 3:06 pm

          there is some “truth” in that

        • karol 5.1.2.4
          24 November 2012 at 6:39 pm

          I see what you did there, k_p. 🙂

          You’re doing well in perfecting the construction of Irrationalist mumbo jumbo. 

          The alumni must also be pleased that you managed to raise the issue of rape, as it was clearly overlooked in the original post, and I have been quite remiss: in my 30+ posts on TS, I have failed to mention it.

          PS: you clearly have not seen my CV.

  6. Saarbo 6
    23 November 2012 at 9:34 pm

    I know a few Singhs/Sikhs and I understand his views are not the views of his culture or religion, he is on his own. He is an arsehole all on his own doing.

    Adding to that, apparently Sikhs tend to be Left of centre…so he’s a real freak.

    • QoT 6.1
      23 November 2012 at 9:36 pm

      For me the baffling thing is not just that he’s a narrow-minded bigot, it’s the complete lack of basic critical thought applied to his beliefs. No, Mr Bakshi, the entire population of New Zealand is not going to magically turn gay overnight if we allow same-sex marriage. Why would this even need to be explained???

      • karol 6.1.1
        23 November 2012 at 9:41 pm

        Doesn’t that kind of logic derived from the idea that males and females were created differently so they could reproduce? … and then they argue that the purpose of living is to reproduce the species etc – but then there’s a bit of a leap to the idea that the human race would die out if everyone was gay.

        • Saarbo 6.1.1.1
          23 November 2012 at 10:00 pm

          I would suggest that trying to understand his logic will do your head in, I watched him on TV…a very weird man. Even weirder than your average Nat….

        • Chris Miller 6.1.1.2
          23 November 2012 at 11:16 pm

          And then there’s studies done that show that younger children have a higher incidence of being gay and suggestions that perhaps this is a deliberate quirk of nature so that the same sex couples can help the rest of the community in raising kids and etc without actually adding to the population – after all, the most stable society in the long term is a small scale one where an extremely vital part of that stability is due to control of the birth rate. Too much population growth was a BAD thing for most of human history.

        • rosy 6.1.1.3
          24 November 2012 at 4:42 am

          “Doesn’t that kind of logic derived from the idea that males and females were created differently so they could reproduce?

          Oops – maybe Mr Bakshi should think about that. After all, it’s not gay couples that produce gay children.

      • felix 6.1.2
        24 November 2012 at 7:33 am

        “No, Mr Bakshi, the entire population of New Zealand is not going to magically turn gay overnight if we allow same-sex marriage. Why would this even need to be explained???””

        I love that argument. I love seeing bigots admit that the only thing stopping them from ditching their current lifestyle and becoming a massive gay is that they’re not allowed to.

        • KJT 6.1.2.1
          24 November 2012 at 10:44 am

          I wonder if a lot of homophobia is because the homophobic is secretly worried if it was allowed they themselves would be gay. Or that they think it may be catching.

        • kiwi_prometheus 6.1.2.2
          24 November 2012 at 12:34 pm

          Felix is a hypocrite.

          Manginas on this site come up with little jems like “women are generally more civilised than men” and its not a problem at all with Felixs ilk.

          Feminists and their fawning mangina sycophants are gender bigots.

          • QoT 6.1.2.2.1
            24 November 2012 at 12:47 pm

            Yes, and people who call other men “manginas” are just Fighting The Power … 🙄

            • kiwi_prometheus 6.1.2.2.1.1
              24 November 2012 at 12:51 pm

              “women are generally more civilised than men”

              Your obviously ok with the above ^ too, QoT.

              Yet if the opposite was stated, you would shit your pants.

              Man hating hypocrite.

              • QoT …
                24 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

                I chose not to engage with that comment. I have more than enough fun just dealing with your far-less-thoughtful whinging.

                Still waiting for that proof I hate all men. Any day now, snookums.

                • kiwi_prometheus …
                  24 November 2012 at 1:08 pm

                  “I chose not to engage with that comment.”

                  Because you are a man hating hypocrite.

                  [lprent: You’re just lucky that QoT has been moderating this post and didn’t take action on this comment. I’d have given you at least twice your last ban and probably a permanent ban. Read the policy on personally attacking authors. ]

          • felix 6.1.2.2.2
            25 November 2012 at 4:45 pm

            “Felix is a hypocrite.

            Manginas on this site come up with little jems like “women are generally more civilised than men” and its not a problem at all with Felixs ilk.”

            lolwut?

            Who told you that?

            • felix 6.1.2.2.2.1
              25 November 2012 at 5:57 pm

              Hey kiwi_prometheus,

              Seeing as you’re probably going to get banned really soon for your horrible bigotry, would you mind awfully answering my question first?

              And yes, I do expect it will be “awfully”.

  7. AsleepWhileWalking 7
    23 November 2012 at 10:55 pm

    I watched an episode of Oprah which covered being gay around the world. From Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s weird comments I assumed it was a cultural thing(??)

    Oprah had a LOVELY prince from India on the show who had married and tried to play the role society had cut out for him, but eventually he had to come out. Disowned by his family he exuded such peace around him and total self acceptance I found it was a spiritual experience just to watch him through the TV.

    Quote:
    “Prince Manvendra knew if he told the world he was gay, it could cost him the throne and his freedom. In India, sexual acts between people of the same sex are illegal and punishable by 10 years to life in prison.”

    Read more: http://www.oprah.com/world/Gay-Rights-is-a-Global-Civil-Rights-Revolution/3#ixzz2D2S9wsnh

    Hope Bakshi will eventually drop his judgements around SSM and come to a place of peace or at least come to the realisation that the world won’t fall apart when the Bill passes.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 7.1
      23 November 2012 at 11:05 pm

      Quote:

      The queen took out an ad in a newspaper to announce she was disowning her son and threatened to hold anyone who referred to the prince as her son in contempt. “I wasn’t shocked. Actually I don’t blame her. I blame her ignorance,” Prince Manvendra says. “As most of the Indians do about homosexuality. They are very, very, insensitive and unavailable on the whole issue.”

      Read more: http://www.oprah.com/world/Gay-Rights-is-a-Global-Civil-Rights-Revolution/3#ixzz2D2SsaFCc

    • Saarbo 7.2
      24 November 2012 at 7:30 am

      AWW, I think indian culture is pretty diverse, over 1.2b. Sikhs make up 2% around 20m. Soooo, no doubt some will be bigots, etc , etc. But from what I have been told Sikhism split from the Hindu religion in the 1500’s to reject the caste system. Its a religion that is supposed to be open minded and accepting of all. But like other cultures it will have its share of idiots like Bakshi, I just dont want the next time someone sees a Sikh they automatically think he/she is a bigot. The principals of the Sikh religion could be worse. 

  8. xtasy 8
    24 November 2012 at 1:00 am

    What do I know about Kanwajit Singh Bakshis?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591650

    http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Kanwaljit_Singh_Bakshi

    That is what war reported on the man before. Maybe he got cleared, but I somehow do not trust that man.

    That is my feeling, right or wrong.

    Re “babbys” of “gay” parenthood, I feel his mind is running wild and he believes also gay’s minds are running wild and thus may be “dangerous” and “harmful”, creating “gay babies” out of mindsets and undue influences?!

    Is this not just the price to pay, and the adverse side of, cultural diversity?

    Get me right, I met middle eastern men who are or have been abusing women, and they were legally accepted as residents and citizens in NZ.

    So “gay” or not so “gay”, there are some bizarre characters about, and some even sit in Parliament, under the watch of Hone Key!

  9. xtasy 9
    24 November 2012 at 1:05 am

    The next suggestion by such characters will be: They simply want to “raise” “adopted” children to “make” them gay, so they can “abuse” them as minors in all their “privacy”, right?

    This is homophobia gone wild, and I saw that MP talk to one NZ First MP, who also in their collective voted against the bill.

    Officially they want more public input and a referendum, but some NZ First MPs are just as bad as this man, Prosser being one of them!

  10. millsy 10
    24 November 2012 at 7:40 am

    As a Sikh, Bakshi should know all about being discriminated against, and treated like a second class citizen, getting the funny looks, being called a terrorist, etc and so on simply because of the life you wish to live.

    Goes to show, ethnic minorites can be just as rednecked as the rednecks.

  11. PlanetOrphan 11
    24 November 2012 at 9:58 am

    I’ve heard Singh Bakshi’s crap my entire life , it’s childish perceptions applied to humour in an attempt to break peoples hearts, which causes the human body to convulse in an attempt to re-start the heart.
    i.e. Laughter.

    In Singh Bakshi’s case it should be tears, the mans’ a bigot plain and simple.

    The one question he needs to ask is “What if I was Gay ?”

    • kiwi_prometheus 11.1
      24 November 2012 at 12:48 pm

      Lots of gays aren’t interested in marriage or the supposed “right” to it.

      • QoT 11.1.1
        24 November 2012 at 12:51 pm

        Strangely enough, that’s not how rights work, k_p.

      • PlanetOrphan 11.1.2
        24 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

        What people call their union is up too them,
        It’s not the countrys’ body, nor is it it’s place too tell you how you live in it.

        • kiwi_prometheus 11.1.2.1
          24 November 2012 at 1:26 pm

          You’re the one who was going on about women being more civilised than men.

          You are totally discredited.

          • PlanetOrphan 11.1.2.1.1
            24 November 2012 at 1:35 pm

            Fair Enough KP.

            You’re right , I will defend those weaker than myself.

            Lets toe the line buddy ….
            You get the first hit M8! …..

  12. kiwi_prometheus 12
    24 November 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Its not marriage otherwise.

    Team Feminists hate marriage, they hate men and they hate heterosexuals. Just look at the crazy shit their “intellectuals” publish.

    They are not the true Left.

    It’s no coincidence that the New Right have surged ahead at the same time Team Feminists rocked on up to the Left camp.

    • Daveosaurus 12.1
      24 November 2012 at 12:30 pm

      Marriage is between consenting adults. It’s not marriage otherwise. The gender of the consenting adults, and what they get up to behind closed doors, is nobody’s business but their own.

      • kiwi_prometheus 12.1.1
        24 November 2012 at 12:46 pm

        Fuck off!

        Marriage isn’t about “what [ consenting adults ] get up to behind closed doors”.

        It involves the acknowledgement by the society/community which is EVERYONE’S BUSINESS.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          24 November 2012 at 12:56 pm

          Sticky Beak

        • Treetop 12.1.1.2
          24 November 2012 at 12:58 pm

          Marriage is a contract between two people. Whether or not the community approve or disprove of the union is neither here nor there as a relationship thrives only when both in it want it.

        • Daveosaurus 12.1.1.3
          24 November 2012 at 1:38 pm

          I’ll believe that’s the case once the Government sets up a public web-cam in your bedroom. Until such time as it does, what goes on in other people’s own bedrooms is no more anyone else’s business than what goes on in yours.

          • Tracey 12.1.1.3.1
            25 November 2012 at 7:45 pm

            I suspect little goes on in there. Some Hetereosexuals, like KP spend more time thinking about homosexual’s sex lives than most homosexuals spend thinking about their own sex lives…

            • felix 12.1.1.3.1.1
              25 November 2012 at 8:27 pm

              Probably for the same reason that I spend more time thinking about Christmas dinner than I do thinking about Santa Clause 😉

        • Populuxe1 12.1.1.4
          24 November 2012 at 5:46 pm

          You do realise that transexuals have been able to marry as the gender they’ve transitioned to for years, don’t you? How does that fit in your narrow little worldview?

        • Tracey 12.1.1.5
          25 November 2012 at 7:43 pm

          You seem very angry. Why does this topic bring out so much anger in you KP?

    • karol 12.2
      24 November 2012 at 7:01 pm

      It’s no coincidence that the New Right have surged ahead at the same time Team Feminists rocked on up to the Left camp.

      It also coincides with the drop in the road toll in NZ. 

      Another great victory for feminism – safer roads! 

    • Roy 12.3
      26 November 2012 at 11:17 am

      Is kiwi-prometheus really such a fool and a bigot, or is he satirizing stupid bigots?

      If he is really such a fool and a bigot, I wish he hadn’t used the name of Prometheus, the Titan who gave fire to mankind. Prometheus was always one of my favourite mythological characters. Damn.

  13. Treetop 13
    24 November 2012 at 12:45 pm

    People who are being marginalised against need to fight for their rights to be treated equally and fairly.

    Bakshi has some way to go regarding educating himself when it comes to the rights of same sex couples.

    • kiwi_prometheus 13.1
      24 November 2012 at 1:15 pm

      “People who are being marginalised against”

      They are being no more marginalised against than QoT and Karol are because they don’t qualify for the All Blacks.

      • QoT 13.1.1
        24 November 2012 at 1:17 pm

        Booooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. Haven’t your handlers come up with a new missing-the-point analogy yet?

        • kiwi_prometheus 13.1.1.1
          24 November 2012 at 1:22 pm

          If I’m so boring, fuck off then.

          Thought you would be playing Saturday soccer or softball now anyway.

          Actually you would probably make a good prop in rugby, they need to be heavy.

          • QoT 13.1.1.1.1
            24 November 2012 at 1:23 pm

            Wow, k_p, that was almost a subtle “lol you’re a manly lesbian” dig. Almost.

            • kiwi_prometheus 13.1.1.1.1.1
              24 November 2012 at 1:29 pm

              Of course you feel free to mouth off about men, its only ‘unfair’ when its dished out to you.

              Then you have to run crying to lprent to put me in lock down right?

              [QoT: No, dipshit, then I get to fucking moderate you because I’m a fucking author. One more gendered dig and you can consider yourself banned from my posts.]

              [lprent: I own the backend of the system and QoT does not. She can and does moderate pretty well and she usually see the comments on her posts long before I do a sweep. I mostly observe and if I need to, will enforce. ]

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                24 November 2012 at 1:42 pm

                WTF?!

                You make gendered digs all the time about straight white guys. No doubt telling yourself its ok because you think you’re fighting for equality and justice and they are the sworn Enemy!

                • QoT …
                  24 November 2012 at 1:43 pm

                  As ever, you are welcome to provide citations. Just do try to avoid “subtly” questioning my gender performance or sexual orientation (or that of other commenters) while you do.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 November 2012 at 7:42 pm

                    [QoT: No, dipshit, then I get to fucking moderate you because I’m a fucking author. One more gendered dig and you can consider yourself banned from my posts.]

                    There’s a certain elegance to your writing, I have to say.

                • AsleepWhileWalking …
                  24 November 2012 at 1:53 pm

                  I think you are just rude. You use unnecessary swearing to punctuate arguments, the ban can’t come soon enough. Good thing this place is well moderated.

  14. Rogue Trooper 14
    24 November 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Jesus Wept. Mary and Martha.
    feet of clay after thinker

  15. Tracey 15
    25 November 2012 at 7:56 pm

    I just need it explained to me exactly how giving same sex couples the legal right to get married changes the lives of heterosexual couples who choose to marry? Relying on a definition from a bible or some other book is not enough, definitions change all the time. For example the word gay used to mean happy, then it meant homosexual and then it was used as a word to denigrate anything dislike by the user of the word… so marriage will mean a union witnessed by the state (and a fee charged for it) between two consenting adults of a minimum age. This will also mean that homosexual couples can’t claim superannuation as two single supplements and so on. Those who bemoan the welfare system ought to be pleased with this side-effect.

    I for one am so sick of how the words in books written about an invisible deity have to be “respected” no matter how unproven or absurd, but basic human compassion can be ignored.

    Some facts about gender and other bias. I suspect some here continue in the belief that what they believe must be true.

    ““…The only way to do that would be by a randomized controlled experiment. This means creating a situation where all variables other than the one of interest are held equal, so that differences in outcome can indeed be attributed to the one factor that differs. If it’s gender bias we are interested in, that would mean comparing reactions toward two identical human beings – identical in intelligence, competence, lifestyle, goals, etc. – with the one difference between them that one is a man and one is a woman. Not exactly a situation that exists in the real world.

    But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student…

    The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to $30,238.10…”

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/“

  16. Vicky32 16
    25 November 2012 at 8:35 pm

    [QoT: Vicky, you’re not nearly as funny as you think. Please be advised that future comments on my posts in complete disregard of my moderation and lprent’s advice will result in creative editing on my part.]

    [lprent: one week ban. you have already been warned. ]

Links to post