6 ms·
Men Have Always Used 'Science' to Explain Why They're Better Than Women
- EliRivers 9y agoPeople have always used whatever comes to hand to explain why they're better than other people. Science, morality, manifest destiny, God's chosen people, physical characteristics, literature, history, geography, geology, climate, technology, law, banking, on and on. Pick a group, pick a reason.
- jstanley 9y ago> In the now-viral document entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” Damore asserts that women are biologically ill-equipped to handle the rigors of the tech industry. Did they even read it? He does not assert anything like that.
- emodendroket 9y agoI found this by just looking for the word "biological" in the original: "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
- GenericsMotors 9y agoAnd I can't see how one would interpret that as meaning "ill-equipped to handle the rigors of the tech industry".
- emodendroket 9y agoIt says 1) that women are innately different from men in some unspecified way and that 2) this difference may explain the gender gap in technology. I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims.
- GenericsMotors 9y ago> I think "women are ill-equipped (or worse-equipped than men) to do tech jobs" is a statement that naturally follows from those claims. It doesn't. You and the article make a leap that amounts to putting words in Damore's mouth. On the flip side: in fields where women are over-represented (veterinary medicine), is this because men are ill-equipped to be vets or is it that most men opt not to take this career path?
- emodendroket 9y agoWell, it depends. Are you claiming there is a biological difference between men and women that explains the gap in veterinary medicine? If so then yes, I would say that is your claim.
- GenericsMotors 9y agoPerhaps there is, yet this still wouldn't make men "ill-equipped" to be vets. Only different enough that most choose not to be. Can you see now how you and the article are misrepresenting the original statement?
- emodendroket 9y agoWell, frankly, no, I still don't see where you're coming from at all.
- cowpig 9y agoIll-equipped: I'm ill-equipped to play basketball at a professional level: I'm not particularly huge, I have weak knees, and I broke my arm as a child in a way that prevents me from shooting correctly. However, I love basketball and have spent many hours of my life improving myself at it. If I was well-equipped to play professionally, I probably would do so. Choose not to: I am well-equipped to walk the Appalachian trail. I have done multiple-day hikes before, and am confident I would be capable of achieving this. However, taking seven months out of my life to walk across some mountains doesn't appeal to me. I choose not to do so. Does that make the difference clear?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jstanley 9y agoRight. That's not the same as asserting that women are "ill-equipped to handle the rigors of the tech industry". He's talking about distributions, and why women might be naturally under-represented.
- emodendroket 9y agoI cannot see any possible interpretation of those claims that does not necessarily imply women's being ill-equipped to do the work.
- jenkstom 9y agoJust to play devil's advocate, it might imply that women don't want to do the work.
- emodendroket 9y agoI guess it is possible that he's is claiming they are capable but their biology makes them not want to do it. I don't think it's a very likely interpretation, and even if it is a correct interpretation, I don't really think it is a difference in kind.
- lucozade 9y agoI don't know what the Google chap was referring to specifically, but unequal gender representation in leadership roles is definitely skewed by unequal gender choices over child rearing. It strikes me that there's a perfectly sensible argument to be made that a material part of this inequality has a biological basis. I think there's next to no sensible argument to be made that most maturity decisions are made due to some lack of leadership ability or potential. Or put another way, if someone makes the case that there are biological or cultural effects that impact on choices people make then I, for one, am willing to listen. Not least because there may be opportunities to mitigate those choices (I have had some success, for example, with mothers returning to the workforce in leadership roles). If someone makes the case for biological or cultural reasons why someone is ill-equipped to do most 21C jobs in a developed society, then I usually assume they are just bigots as I've seen little to no evidence for this.
- mizzack 9y agoGizmodo doubling down on misrepresentation, I see.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]