I actually agree with your first post. The second one, however, raises a few doubts.

Attributing liberal bias to all major academia, media and organizations is a little too much, especially in the absence of evidence for such a claim. In my view, there are lots of conservative media outlets (Fox News comes to mind), research centers (the Creation Museum in Kansas(?) comes to mind), etc. which throw results out with what you might call a conservative bias.

Usually, it's a better to look at who is giving the funding to try to guess possible political bias. Right-wing religious groups, for instance, usually give money to support the kind of research that proves their points.

But all in all, academia has people with lots of different orientations. The amount of discussion and even sometimes vehement fight within academia shows that it can hardly be seen as showing a monolithic viewpiont on these issues. There's a lot more going on that simple political bias (which does also play a role).

You said: "I have no need for academic disinformation to tell me the whole of society is constantly biased AGAINST the needs of men."

I'm curious: how does that follow from the article or from any of the letters in the thread? I don't see what in the article or in academic information suggests that society is constantly biased against the interests of men.

Is it possible to find a copy of the original paper somewhere? If what you say is accurate, mccfan, then I would agree with btrader that confirmation bias is probably ripe in the paper (cf. e.g. the possibly ignored endogenous relations that ProfOtto mentioned). Didn't the authors deal with these issues? Did you happen to ask them about it, and did they give an answer? This might suggest that the whole study needs to be redone.

What is up with your unnecessarily vicious rejoinder to Asehpe? Do you always hurl such hysterical vitriol at everyone who disagrees with you, or do you just hate feminism/women?

1. Asehpe is not female.

2. Asehpe is hardly a "typical feminist", as his previous posts on porn, sexism, and objectification make clear.

3. Asehpe is one of the few posters here who has consistently evinced objective, level-headed analysis of the issues, and has insisted that we debate the issues in a civil, non-hateful manner, and that we try not to perceive and respond to each other as if we were stereotypical gender role/ideological caricatures.

Asehpe and I do not always agree on the issues, but he almnost always conducts himself in a civil, intelligent, mature, and thoughtful manner. His behavior has helped persuade me to more seriously consider the logic and veracity of some of his points which I would normally disagree with. You could learn a lot from him, if you want your words here to be well received and to have an impact. But if you could just came here to post nasty hateful little responses then I guess that is what you will keep doing, instead of behaving like a civil and intelligent adult who has a legitimate point to make and is grown up enough not to make it personal. Funny, a lack of objectivity and a predisposition to making things personal is what men are always accusing women of. Projection, much?

I'm inclined to take mccfan at his word. TCF should have done the heavy lifting herself and investigated the piece. She didn't and leaves it up to us to either speculate as to the cause of her journalistic laziness or do the investigating on our own. I really hope that by the time I hit publish on this letter that we'll know for sure, one way or the other, how flawed this study truly was. This doesn't change the fact that it should have been vetted, by someone at Salon, well before TCF was allowed to publish it.

I could run with this and, unfortunately, argue that in many ways this corroborates some of the more vitriolic polemics that appear on the comments threads, but it's a waste of time.

Just because you contribute to a blog as opposed to an actual publication, doesn't mean you're free of certain responsibilities (be they journalistic, moral, ethical etc.). There are other blogs on salon where the author/contributor wouldn't dare post a piece (even if the results confirmed his assumptions) without doing a bare minimum of investigating.

Instead, we get a blog that is little more than a list of links for the day. Rarely do posts surpass the five paragraph mark. To borrow the verbiage of Broadsheet's editor from earlier in the week, no, this doesn't offend me as an internet surfer, it offends me as a feminist.

...that confirmation bias and actual sexism both exist?

Agree that it would be helpful if these articles on studies helped establish what's what when it comes to topics such as pay differences between men and women working the same jobs.

But frankly it's a complex topic that one study (or one hundred) is probably never going to fully resolve or prove one way or the other. Very sad for the hardcore idealogues in both camps I'm sure. And for all those who insist that quantifiable data is the only route to objective truth.

Asehpe, you're the non-traditional, level-headed, egalitarian father we never had.

Thanks for keeping the topic civil.

Ghastly weather in The Village today, eh?

Be seeing you!

While I am inclined to agree with you about Broadsheet and science, I doubt that we are likely to see many changes.

I'm inclined to take mccfan at his word. TCF should have done the heavy lifting herself and investigated the piece. She didn't and leaves it up to us to either speculate as to the cause of her journalistic laziness or do the investigating on our own.

After having read Broadsheet for well over a year, I am convinced that the Broadsheet writers and Joan Walsh do not see Broadsheet as having an investigative mission. Indeed, I have trouble finding any evidence of a desire for investigative journalism anywhere on Salon except for "The Way the World Works" and Glenn Greenwald.

Salon and Broadsheet in particular seem to have a mission of commentary and click points.

I really hope that by the time I hit publish on this letter that we'll know for sure, one way or the other, how flawed this study truly was. This doesn't change the fact that it should have been vetted, by someone at Salon, well before TCF was allowed to publish it.

That's why I read the letters threads. Trolls aside, Salon has some of the smartest letter writers around. I am grateful for that. I wonder how long they can depend upon them as they do, getting free benefit of intelligent people willing to engage and correct misconceptions.

Just because you contribute to a blog as opposed to an actual publication, doesn't mean you're free of certain responsibilities (be they journalistic, moral, ethical etc.). There are other blogs on salon where the author/contributor wouldn't dare post a piece (even if the results confirmed his assumptions) without doing a bare minimum of investigating.

Other blogs? Not many. If "The War Room" gets any lamer I am going to quite reading it. Where is the expected analysis? Schaller does some, but Alex is like a political gossip columnist.

Instead, we get a blog that is little more than a list of links for the day. Rarely do posts surpass the five paragraph mark. To borrow the verbiage of Broadsheet's editor from earlier in the week, no, this doesn't offend me as an internet surfer, it offends me as a feminist..

Tracy does what she does very, very well. There is none better at the Broadsheet brand of coy snarkiness and troll bait. Plus, the gal can really write. It is Traister who does the real feminism at Salon. I like Broadsheet for it's entertainment factor, but I take it for what it is.

Serious feminist commentary can be found other places.

What Salon -- not Broadsheet! -- really needs is a writer well-versed in the sciences and social sciences.