This feels like Mothra versus Godzilla

It took nearly two weeks for Zuska to respond to the Tierney article.  In lieu of her response, which is apparently delayed, she offered a short essay from the Association for Women in Science. 

In addition to not being a journalist or a member of the academy (any academy), I am also not a scientist.  Despite my disadvantage I did notice a couple of interesting things in the Tierney article.

He starts off as the always-popular concern troll, "But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women."  Which critics?  Your grandmother?  I don't know about y'all, but whenever a so-called journalist plays concern troll, it's guaranteed to activate my bullshit detector.

Later on Tierney touts the success of women in higher eduction by looking at percentages and populations: "...women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.’s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences."  This is fine so far but what happens next?  Where do those students go?  Here's what AWIS has to say,

"Women enter faculty positions in engineering and physics roughly in proportion to their presence in the PhD pool, but then gradually disappear from higher ranks. This pattern suggests a discouraging environment once they join the faculty. The existence of a discouraging environment is supported by the trends seen in life sciences, where women have earned close to 50 percent of the PhDs for several decades. Biology departments rarely have more than 30 percent women faculty, and women average less than 25 percent of the full professors in biomedical departments at research universities. Isn't this alone sufficient reason for federal agencies to examine what is going on?

This sounds quite science-y and mysterious to me.  What is the explanation for this sudden drop in numbers?  Both "sides" of the argument seem to agree about the numbers of female students in higher education in general and even the number achieving doctorates.  Where the sides differ is precisely that area the Feds are now beginning to study.  AWIS takes notice while Tierney et al changes the subject.

And what a change Tierney makes!  From analysis of populations to a single investigation to a longitudinal study that finds "...women were as content with their careers as their male counterparts."  There's obviously no problem here; no need to "[investigate] a problem that may not even exist." 

The forgettable balance of the Tierney article is anecdotes about successful, non-uppity women, more concern trolling and a smattering of good old fear mongering; albeit discreet and deniable.  Imitation gold leaf.  The turd that Tierney lays is hidden inside that roller-coaster change of topic, just inside the door of the faculty lounge, waiting for the brand-new freshman faculty member.

...

Coda

Women's restroom?  That'll be on third floor, at the end of the hall.