4 ms·
His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED. And to your point... yes? If someone said a pr
by slavak 9y ago
His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED.
And to your point... yes?
If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense?
This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biological differences backed while proper scientific research, while taking care to treat people as individuals and avoid generalizing based on the distribution mean, then what's actually the problem here?
- rbanffy 9y agoIs the gender bias due to a biological lack of interest by women, by cultural norm, by harassment, or by active discrimination?
- slavak 9y agoI don't know, but I think the answer is not obvious and this is a discussion worth having. Which is, arguably, exactly what the guy who wrote this memo was trying to do. There IS well-established scientific evidence for differences IN THE DISTRIBUTION of areas of interest and specific abilities between the sexes, although even /that/ is apparently too taboo to discuss in this day and age. How big an effect this has on the gender bias in specific professions is a much harder question, although personally I find the assertion that it is "none" difficult to accept without overwhelming evidence. Add on to that the question of how to correctly tackle this bias and you've got an even more divisive topic, as now you've layered on an ideological issue on top of a difficult-to-isolate research question on top of a scientifically well-studied but publicly controversial topic. Unfortunately, this is the issue the author of the memo tried to address.