The Great Gender-Bias Hoax Finally Collapses: Women Now Have the Edge in STEM Hiring – And the 2012 Myth Was Always Garbage! By Mrs Vera West and Peter West
In 2012, the academic world lost its collective mind over a study that "proved" science is a vicious boys' club.
Professors were sent identical CVs – one named "John," one named "Jennifer" – and supposedly rated the male version as more competent, more hireable, and worth thousands more in salary. Yes, that's academic research.
The paper exploded: 4,600 citations, endless TED Talks, mandatory bias training, billions in "gender equity" grants, and a permanent seat at the table for every feminist grievance session about why women are "under-represented" in STEM.
Fast-forward to 2025.
Someone finally did the one thing the grievance industry never does: they repeated the stupid experiment, only bigger and better.
Result?
The exact opposite.
A massive replication (1,300+ professors, 50+ universities, same CVs, same questions) found that "Jennifer" is now rated marginally more competent, more hireable, more likeable, and worth $1,400 more per year than "John."
The original finding – the one that launched a thousand diversity bureaucracies – vanished like flatulence in a hurricane.
And when the replicators tried to publish the proposal in Nature Human Behaviour?
Rejected out of hand.
Because nothing terrifies the Church of Woke Science more than evidence that their sacred victim narrative is a lie.
The 2012 Study was Always Statistical Trash
Let's be blunt: the original Williams & Ceci (2012) paper was a textbook example of p-hacking on a shoestring sample.
127 responses from six universities.
Tiny effect size.
No pre-registration.
Massive researcher degrees of freedom.
In real science, that's called "suggestive pilot data."
In feminist academia, it was treated as Holy Writ and used to beat men over the head for thirteen straight years.
The new study – pre-registered, ten times the sample size, transparent code – is what actual science looks like.
And actual science just proved the 2012 result was a fluke, a mirage, a feminist fever dream.
The New Reality: Anti-Male Bias is Baked In
Today, if you're a man applying for a lab manager job in American academia, you're already starting a step behind.
"Jennifer" gets the slight nod on competence, hireability, mentoring willingness, and salary.
And that's just the lab manager position.
We already know from audit studies, grant reviews, and hiring committees that women now enjoy:
Higher NIH grant success rates at every career stage.
Faster promotion to associate professor.
Double-digit advantages in tenure-track offers when credentials are matched.
Near-total immunity from the "two-body problem" because departments will bend over backwards to accommodate female partners.
The pipeline isn't "leaking women."
It's quietly filtering men out at every stage while screaming about patriarchy.
The Real Scandal: They Knew and Didn't Care
The most damning part isn't even the replication failure.
It's that when Honeycutt and Jussim proposed a registered replication – the gold standard for cleaning up bad science – Nature Human Behaviour's reviewers killed it before it even started.
Translation: a top journal decided that testing whether anti-female bias actually exists in STEM hiring is literally unpublishable, because the answer might be politically inconvenient.
This is not science.
This is ideology with a peer-review stamp.
The Anti-Feminist Takeaway: Stop Apologising, Start Fighting Back
For decades men – especially young men – have been told they're the beneficiaries of an invisible privilege escalator in STEM.
They've sat through struggle sessions, watched hiring committees openly discriminate in favour of "diversity," and kept their mouths shut because speaking up gets you cancelled.
Enough.
The data now show the escalator runs the other way.
The victimhood narrative is dead.
The only question left is how many billions were wasted, how many male careers were derailed, and how many second-rate "diversity hires" got pushed through while better candidates were quietly discarded – all on the back of a 2012 study that was never replicated until it was finally debunked.
The feminist myth of ubiquitous anti-woman bias in science isn't just wrong.
It was always a weapon, and it's time to throw it in the trash where it belongs.
Men aren't the oppressors in academic hiring.
They're the ones eating a systematic thumb on the scale – and the people who built that scale just got caught refusing to let anyone test it.
Game over.
Comments