8 ms·

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hyst

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hysterical (a contentious word choice, given the subject), perhaps consider why others might be outraged, you could try some empathy (though I know the article warns us against empathy). The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination I think it is explicitly anti-diversity in that it sees nothing wrong with the current order of things, if that order can be justified by failings in the weaker vessels that surround the author like empathy and neuroticism (as the author clearly thinks it can). It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the natural order of things so neatly reflects the author's place at the top of the pyramid though, almost as if the rules had been written by people just like the author. Since when is dialectics grounds for ostracism? I doubt the author has faced ostracism, he certainly seems confident enough in expressing his disdain for a large number of the people he works with, without apparent fear of consequences. Since dialectics is usually taken as a search for truth, here are some things that the author believes which are not true: Women are not more neurotic than men Women are not less scientific than men Women are not more interested in feelings and aesthetics than ideas (a curious dichotomy) Women do not innately prefer jobs in social or artistic areas over say engineering

remarkEon 9y ago
Sorry, but there's a whole host of psychological research that has long established behavioral differences between male and female. I find this new rejection on the Left of what are simply basic observations of biologically formed behaviors to be extremely bizarre. I'm really struggling to understand it because to me it seems like the same kind of science rejection we'd see on the Right if we were talking about climate change.
- grey-area 9y ago
  I didn't claim there are no biological differences between men and women (of course there are), but that doesn't back the specific claims of differences in the article (which are remarkably specific and tailored to areas of male behaviour the author clearly valorises and identifies with, e.g. status driven = good, empathy = bad).
- taysic 9y ago
  As a woman, the way I feel is whatever the differences are - are hard to prove and isolate outside of our society. Whatever they are makes no difference to me. Every person has a right to pursue their own happiness with their choosing. But delineating or using these differences to justify behavior does not feel appropriate in a work place. If a company could not find many female engineers to hire (I am one) then ok. No need to create a table on why / why not that stands on weak ground anyway.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    Except they aren't difficult to prove, and this is what really really bothers me. We've got hundreds of thousands of years of innate, biologically formed behaviors that we have because they were evolutionarily advantageous. I'm not saying we should use these differences to discriminate, what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to observe that they inform behavior and career preference.
    - brown9-2 9y ago
      What you keep referring to as "biologically formed behaviors" others see as "formed by society".
      - remarkEon 9y ago
        Right, I know, and my response is that those people are wrong. Yes some behaviors are socially formed. Of course. But "Society" has existed for a trivial amount of time relative to human history. Again, this is weird to pretend behavior isn't informed by biology. I just don't understand it.
    - taysic 9y ago
      They are difficult to prove because they are exceedingly general and abstract. Try this one from the article: "Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas." I have to say there could be other reasons for this. A big one is that people gravitate toward things where other people like them already are. They have a tendency to emulate. It takes unique people to break out of molds and do things that others don't expect of them. Or that aren't familiar or socially comfortable to do. Same for men. Now it could be true this is related to an innate trait. But who cares? We're talking about 50% of the population and the differences between people are aplenty. Companies have no business in deciding what's the right thing for any group anyway. Whatever people's motivations are - biological or something they came up with yesterday ultimately isn't anyone else's business.
- AnOscelot 9y ago
  Sure, there are differences. For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do. Men can be firefighters, loggers, hairdressers, florists, politicians, engineers, interior designers, party planners, chefs, teachers. There aren't many professions where people would question why a man was doing the job instead of a woman. What the left and feminism wants is for the same consideration to be given to women. That despite gender differences, if a woman can do the job, then there are no second guesses or carping about gender. That she's allowed to just be, just like men are. That there's a recognition that while gender differences exist, men can do jobs once considered traditionally feminine, and can do them well. And that we can recognize women can do jobs once considered tradtionally masculine, and can do them well.
  - jee_accnt 9y ago
    "For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do" Actually there are plenty of fields and jobs that are considered feminine. And where men are underrepresented and underpaid. A study has shown that with the same qualifications, a woman is twice as likely to be picked for the same job than a man. And the longer we keep it politically incorrect to criticize feminism and the left, the larger that gap will become. Am not saying those aren't needed. But I also think it is time we have an opposing voice (like this article) to keep both in balance.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
renaudg 9y ago
> I doubt the author has faced ostracism Here's one of his colleagues threatening to quit "if HR does nothing in this case" : https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072 https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072 > here are some things that the author believes which are not true You've left out "on average" (which is stated no less than 7 times in the document). It does seem to be all supported by research : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
- grey-area 9y ago
  That's not ostracism. The research you linked talks about girls not women and is worryingly slanted. Here's a rebuttal based on other research: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3LAlcESJTBxIBg https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3...
MichaelGG 9y ago
Women are slower and weaker then men, demanding separate sports rankings to be able to compete. Seems almost dualistic to think their minds would be 100% identical.
- TimTheTinker 9y ago
  This comment isn't complete without the observation that society can survive a near-complete annihilation of men, but not women. Equality is a meaningless term unless we specify what needs to be equal. In my worldview, men and women ought to be valued and respected equally because both are equally created in the image of God.
jack9 9y ago
I think you have a penchant for turning probabilistic norms (women do score higher than men for neuroticism, on average from puberty onward, for example) into straw men. > Women are not more neurotic than men That's not the same thing, so no. > From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite; Finland is a case study in cultural gender equalization leading to gender gaps becoming more pronounced over time. You might want to look up Jordan Peterson, who is rather high profile, in regards to this topic. I think it's obvious that this document was formed after seeing a bit of his youtube material.

remarkEon 9y ago

Sorry, but there's a whole host of psychological research that has long established behavioral differences between male and female. I find this new rejection on the Left of what are simply basic observations of biologically formed behaviors to be extremely bizarre. I'm really struggling to understand it because to me it seems like the same kind of science rejection we'd see on the Right if we were talking about climate change.

grey-area 9y ago
I didn't claim there are no biological differences between men and women (of course there are), but that doesn't back the specific claims of differences in the article (which are remarkably specific and tailored to areas of male behaviour the author clearly valorises and identifies with, e.g. status driven = good, empathy = bad).
taysic 9y ago
As a woman, the way I feel is whatever the differences are - are hard to prove and isolate outside of our society. Whatever they are makes no difference to me. Every person has a right to pursue their own happiness with their choosing. But delineating or using these differences to justify behavior does not feel appropriate in a work place. If a company could not find many female engineers to hire (I am one) then ok. No need to create a table on why / why not that stands on weak ground anyway.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  Except they aren't difficult to prove, and this is what really really bothers me. We've got hundreds of thousands of years of innate, biologically formed behaviors that we have because they were evolutionarily advantageous. I'm not saying we should use these differences to discriminate, what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to observe that they inform behavior and career preference.
  - brown9-2 9y ago
    What you keep referring to as "biologically formed behaviors" others see as "formed by society".
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      Right, I know, and my response is that those people are wrong. Yes some behaviors are socially formed. Of course. But "Society" has existed for a trivial amount of time relative to human history. Again, this is weird to pretend behavior isn't informed by biology. I just don't understand it.
  - taysic 9y ago
    They are difficult to prove because they are exceedingly general and abstract. Try this one from the article: "Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas." I have to say there could be other reasons for this. A big one is that people gravitate toward things where other people like them already are. They have a tendency to emulate. It takes unique people to break out of molds and do things that others don't expect of them. Or that aren't familiar or socially comfortable to do. Same for men. Now it could be true this is related to an innate trait. But who cares? We're talking about 50% of the population and the differences between people are aplenty. Companies have no business in deciding what's the right thing for any group anyway. Whatever people's motivations are - biological or something they came up with yesterday ultimately isn't anyone else's business.
AnOscelot 9y ago
Sure, there are differences. For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do. Men can be firefighters, loggers, hairdressers, florists, politicians, engineers, interior designers, party planners, chefs, teachers. There aren't many professions where people would question why a man was doing the job instead of a woman. What the left and feminism wants is for the same consideration to be given to women. That despite gender differences, if a woman can do the job, then there are no second guesses or carping about gender. That she's allowed to just be, just like men are. That there's a recognition that while gender differences exist, men can do jobs once considered traditionally feminine, and can do them well. And that we can recognize women can do jobs once considered tradtionally masculine, and can do them well.
- jee_accnt 9y ago
  "For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do" Actually there are plenty of fields and jobs that are considered feminine. And where men are underrepresented and underpaid. A study has shown that with the same qualifications, a woman is twice as likely to be picked for the same job than a man. And the longer we keep it politically incorrect to criticize feminism and the left, the larger that gap will become. Am not saying those aren't needed. But I also think it is time we have an opposing voice (like this article) to keep both in balance.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

renaudg 9y ago

> I doubt the author has faced ostracism Here's one of his colleagues threatening to quit "if HR does nothing in this case" : https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072 https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072 > here are some things that the author believes which are not true You've left out "on average" (which is stated no less than 7 times in the document). It does seem to be all supported by research : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

grey-area 9y ago
That's not ostracism. The research you linked talks about girls not women and is worryingly slanted. Here's a rebuttal based on other research: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3LAlcESJTBxIBg https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3...

MichaelGG 9y ago

Women are slower and weaker then men, demanding separate sports rankings to be able to compete. Seems almost dualistic to think their minds would be 100% identical.

TimTheTinker 9y ago
This comment isn't complete without the observation that society can survive a near-complete annihilation of men, but not women. Equality is a meaningless term unless we specify what needs to be equal. In my worldview, men and women ought to be valued and respected equally because both are equally created in the image of God.

jack9 9y ago

I think you have a penchant for turning probabilistic norms (women do score higher than men for neuroticism, on average from puberty onward, for example) into straw men. > Women are not more neurotic than men That's not the same thing, so no. > From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite; Finland is a case study in cultural gender equalization leading to gender gaps becoming more pronounced over time. You might want to look up Jordan Peterson, who is rather high profile, in regards to this topic. I think it's obvious that this document was formed after seeing a bit of his youtube material.