Sandra Bruneau’s article "Whither Jill?" in the April issue was supposedly a reply to Andrew Irvine’s analysis of recent trends in hiring of men and women in universities. It is difficult to see the Bruneau article as even related to Irvine’s essay, since she simply does not deal with his arguments or with his statistics. Instead, she takes it for granted that women are being discriminated against, and that they "should" be hired and promoted beyond the present levels. No evidence for such discrimination is forthcoming. Apparently assertion is enough.

Moreover, she imputes to Irvine opinions which he has not uttered (e.g., that women are responsible for declining standards). Most absurd of all, she proposes that somehow being a homemaker and child care worker should count as credit towards academic credentials. So instead of counting publications we should perhaps count offspring? I would suggest that homemaking and motherhood are in themselves important and rewarding activities, but the rewards must be in the appropriate domain.

We also hear once again the familiar feminist complaint that women may not be attracted to (and hence should be excused from compliance in?) a system which requires dedication, hard work, publication, and defence of one’s ideas. The old adage "If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen" inevitably comes to mind.

Your readers, and Professor Irvine, deserve better than this.

Doreen Kimura
Psychology, The University of Western Ontario