"Women don't do well in STEM classes because of masculine ideals!" Really?

Together, Parson and Ozaki interviewed eight female students majoring in math or physics to learn more about why women struggle in STEM. From their interviews, the professors learned that many women feel pressure to conform to so-called “masculine” norms.
According to the professors, these masculine norms include “asking good questions,” “capacity for abstract thought and rational thought processes,” “motivation,” the expectation that students would be “independent” thinkers, and a relatively low fear of failure.
“This requirement that the average student asks questions and speaks in class is based on the typical undergraduate man,” they contend.
So asking questions, speaking in class, and- oh, hell, I can't go on.  Parson and Ozaki, you misogynist bastards!

And a whole EIGHT STUDENTS?  That's it?

And oh, you'll love this:
Further, the professors contend that the time-consuming nature of STEM coursework also inhibits female success, since a tough course load reinforces “the masculine ideal of working an unlimited number of hours based on the unencumbered male body.”
What the hell is the 'unencumbered male body'?  And, once again, these woman- excuse me, womyn-hating clowns think women aren't capable of working hard on a class?

Short version: "Not enough females do well in these classes for us to be happy, so we need to change the classes.  What?  Demand females work as hard as the males trying to pass?  That's sexist!"  Etc.

Also, note that they apparently think that women who DO succeed are, well, a bit too masculine?


Idiots.  And they're professors, being paid for this garbage.