3 ms·

> it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. That is an extreme mischaracterization o

> it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. That is an extreme mischaracterization of the views of those who believe in differences between the sexes. Nowhere does the manifesto author say that women are inferior or less deserving of their equality in terms of their right to pursue whatever career option they find interesting. The belief in question here is that there are differences, that they are measurable, that they have been measured - and you can find the data, with remarkable consistency over a hundred years of psychometrics research. This doesn't mean that anyone should be treated badly, nor does it mean that it would be reasonable to have discriminatory hiring practices. What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. And then there are fields that both seem to do well at. When you discover your field is not in the latter camp, you can either socially engineer it into being artificially equal, and reap whatever consequences you get from that, or you can accept things as they present themselves. > If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? Why do you need to put words in his mouth in order to have an argument?

interpol_p 9y ago
> What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. Men are in control of these fields. Men do not have to face the discrimination and harassment that women must face to work in these fields. There is significantly less friction for men to enter and rise at Google than there is for women. If people were truly considered equal, that friction would not be there and there would be equal representation at the very top. Making that friction go away is what Google is trying to do, and this manifesto does exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll find many women who appreciate the fact that they are considered "more neurotic" by a male engineer at Google. Engineering is not inherently male or female. Women are not worse at spatial reasoning or maths or programming. Bullshit thinking like this leads to discrimination in those fields. > Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? By writing the manifesto he advocates for a system that would. By making the assumption that biological differences account for inequality leads to the thinking that biological differences justify inequality. (I get the sense that this author believes that but is just shy of saying it.) The author has the privilege of not having faced discrimination the same way a woman would have faced in his place. By writing this manifesto blind to that privilege — and then coming to the conclusion that it's "biological differences" and that women are simply "wired differently" — for why they are paid less, and in less senior positions, simply propagates the existing discriminatory system. A system which discriminates against the rights of others. Let's lay out a ridiculous assumption made by the original author: > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. This implies that women are less capable of dealing with stress. Most of my searching on this suggests the opposite, that women deal better with stress than men. But then, the question of gender and stress seems incredibly complicated and the original author has used a simple and blind assumption which favours his ego and supports his position. His entire piece is written like this.

interpol_p 9y ago

> What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. Men are in control of these fields. Men do not have to face the discrimination and harassment that women must face to work in these fields. There is significantly less friction for men to enter and rise at Google than there is for women. If people were truly considered equal, that friction would not be there and there would be equal representation at the very top. Making that friction go away is what Google is trying to do, and this manifesto does exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll find many women who appreciate the fact that they are considered "more neurotic" by a male engineer at Google. Engineering is not inherently male or female. Women are not worse at spatial reasoning or maths or programming. Bullshit thinking like this leads to discrimination in those fields. > Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? By writing the manifesto he advocates for a system that would. By making the assumption that biological differences account for inequality leads to the thinking that biological differences justify inequality. (I get the sense that this author believes that but is just shy of saying it.) The author has the privilege of not having faced discrimination the same way a woman would have faced in his place. By writing this manifesto blind to that privilege — and then coming to the conclusion that it's "biological differences" and that women are simply "wired differently" — for why they are paid less, and in less senior positions, simply propagates the existing discriminatory system. A system which discriminates against the rights of others. Let's lay out a ridiculous assumption made by the original author: > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. This implies that women are less capable of dealing with stress. Most of my searching on this suggests the opposite, that women deal better with stress than men. But then, the question of gender and stress seems incredibly complicated and the original author has used a simple and blind assumption which favours his ego and supports his position. His entire piece is written like this.