There is "no real-world hiring data show a bias against hiring women”  

(Ceci et al 2014, p.101). 

Many people today presume that women are discriminated against in the workplace in various ways. This is not surprising given the steady stream of information from the gender equality industry appearing to support this view. However, that evidence is, as we suggest in various pages on this website, is often deeply flawed thus easily misinterpreted. 

However good evidence is out there, as proved by the excellent paper produced by Ceci and colleagues at Cornell University. Published in the highest ranking psychology journal that I know of (impact factor of 19.228), it is 67 pages exploring a whole range of questions about the position of women in academia - from explanations for innate abilities based on prenatal testosterone levels, to whether better male networks explain male's higher rate of publication. They conclude that: "...invitations to interview for tenure-track positions in math-intensive fields—as well as actual employment offers—reveal that female PhD applicants fare at least as well as their male counterparts in math-intensive fields" (Ceci et al 2014, p.75). 

The full paper is well worth reading (see link below), but a quick look at one of the tables gives an idea of the scope of the research and the enormity of the findings: 

Table 1 shows that female job applicants were interviewed and offered jobs more often than were male job applicants. The facts are undeniable: there was no evidence of bias against women in these STEM jobs. 


Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest15(3), 75-141.  Download the full text here: