Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist.
It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it.
It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is factually/scientifically correct then it must somehow not be sexist. As if sexism consisted of lies? I don't get it.
You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark.
Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence.
The author's point about societies with the most gender equity having bigger gender gaps really drives this point home. In societies where there is gender equity, people aren't compelled to behave a certain way and instead gravitate towards the roles they really want to take.
Real, verifiable, reproducible truths are not sexist or racist. They are truths. The fact that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people#Sport dominate sprinting is supported by empirical evidence and also science.
So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race. These terms shouldn't be used to describe real, empirically shown gender or race differences.
We as humans are all equal in worth, but that doesn't mean we are all the same.
What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, where people take words of someone else and completely flip it around and claim something terrible which did not happen.
> something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.
Of course it is! Seriously listen to yourself! If I say "The average 20 year old healthy person will be able to climb this mountain faster than the average 80 year old healthy person" then it is a fact based on science and DOES NOT make me a ageist, or does it? Now apply the same logic to the previous topic and listen to yourself again.
I only said that something being factually true does not necessarily protect it from being racist or sexist when used in argument or action.
I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false.
Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though)
I'll quote an oxford writer:
> Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question.
His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.
I think the problem is that 'sexist' and 'stereotyping' are loaded terms which imply bad behaviour.
Imagine I'm creating a basketball team and I reason that height is an advantage for players and men tend to be taller than women, so I will not aim to have 50% women on the team. By your definition I'm being sexist, but my attitude doesn't deserve the opprobrium that that label implies.
You are reading things that are not written there, take a breath and read it without bias. It talks about predisposition and how when you look into a collective you observe differences.
Science by definition can't be sexist. In science there is no place for prejudices, beliefs and biases - only facts. It's human attitudes interpreting these facts that can be sexist, racist and so on.
Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task. That's one of the most gross and unfair misrepresentations of the memo.
Of course. But depending on context the use and quoting of it sure can. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of physical difference betweeen races, and there are reasonable ways to use those scientific results - and there are racist ways of using them. Doesn't change that
> Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task.
Wow I read the whole thing (which is rare) and that was what really jumped out. I wonder what I misunderstood.
As one commenter pointed out, it may be something like the gold-and-white vs blue-and-black dress thing. It really behooves each side to try as hard as they can to read the other side's interpretation.
As it has been made obvious I other parts of this thread, people even disagree on what sexism or racism is. Some argue that falsehood is required, for example.
I use the definition that includes prejudice, stereotyping or discriminating based on gender, and irrespective of whether something is factual (I.e I do not subscribe to the idea that facts can't be sexist/racist).
I apologize for reading the "unfit" between the lines - what jumped out at me as stereotypical was remarks such as women being more neurotical and having lower stress thresholds.
I'm not going to argue the truth of it, and I won't argue whether that's sexist (for the reasons outlined above) - but it's definitely stereotyping women - fact or not.
He mentioned Neuroticism as a characteristic which has been observered higher on average with women and cited it with a link to wikipedia which also makes the exact same statement, which again cites other scientific resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism
Does that make Wikipedia sexist?
Which one is sexist to you, or do you find both sexist:
"Women have less stress tolerance"
"Scientific studies show that Neuroticism, a personality trait which is related to less stress tolerance, is on average more common among women than men"
There is a huge difference and if you don't see it, then I think all educational material, books, research, science, really anything is lost on you
Again: science and facts aren't sexist- the arguments and actions using those facts can in some cases be. That's why a single fact quote from the memo can't be sexist, but the memo can be, depending on who it's sent to, what arguments are made. Nothing will be racist or sexist without context. That is, for example why it's not racist for a black person to say something to another black person that would be racist if a white person said it.
We are completely agreeing that facts alone are never sexist or racist. I'm not even sure what it would mean for a fact (or Wikipedia - which is a collection of facts) to be racist. It's not making an argument or action of any kind.
So why exactly is it sexist? He argues that's google's method of achieving diversity is counter-productive and unfair, and he proposes some alternative ways of increasing diversity, which may work better. Doesn't really sound sexist to me.
> Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task. That's one of the most gross and unfair misrepresentations of the memo.
The memo wrote that women generally have a harder time leading. His cited sources don't back that up. How is it a misrepresentation to say he said women generally are not as good at certain roles, like leading? That statement is word for word in the memo,
"This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading."
OK: let me rephrase - he argues that women (for example) have lower stress tolerance and are more neurotic, and that could be a reason for the lack of women at the top. He never says outright that these properties actually make women unfit for those jobs, however.
There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
But there is enough research about biological differences between sexes (and some differences are obvious, such as different hormones, etc) to at least warrant a debate.
"Sexist" is one of a handful of words that have become absolutely sacred in the US, at the expense of scientific discovery (or common sense, or both).
> There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.
If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.
Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?
> If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
Suppose that height is an advantage in basketball and we thereby discover that asian men are underrepresented in the NBA. Are you claiming that is racist and something we have to do something to change?
I don't. However, it's a fine line. Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you". Context, and what precise actions are taken is important here.
The underrepresntation of black people in tech isn't "racist" though there are probably a lot of racist actions taken place that led up to it, and of course tons of structural racism that cause it long term. But the discrepancy isn't "racist" in itself. It's just a discrepancy.
> Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you".
Well of course it is, but it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender. And if the suggestion was for some hypothetical company that was doing that to stop, there would be no objection.
The problem comes when the portion of the gender disparity that isn't attributable to discrimination is attributed to it anyway, and then employers are continually lambasted for something they didn't actually do.
It distracts from addressing the real problems (especially at the high school level) that could actually improve the gender ratio going forward.
> it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender.
>There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
Actually there are numerous observed differences in physical ability that are attributed to race, such as Tibetans having better adaptability to high altitudes than most other groups[1]. Physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, the problem arrives when we start to discuss mental differences.
I see not reason why a difference in environment would not cause various mental adaptations to form along the course of natural selection of geographically separate groups of people. This is an inconvenient idea and has been vehemently suppressed in the scientific community whenever it is brought up [2]. Instead of pretending such differences cannot exist we should instead focus on overcoming these differences so that everyone can participate according to their own unique ability.
> Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist.
It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it.
It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is factually/scientifically correct then it must somehow not be sexist. As if sexism consisted of lies? I don't get it.