4 ms·

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 fac

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.

alkonaut 9y ago
> Science by definition can't be sexist. 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.
- monktastic1 9y ago
  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.
- dustinmoris 9y ago
  Well I can tell you exactly what you misunderstood: The English language. You are making shit up, because at no point in this whole memo did the author use the word "unsuitable" or "suitable" AT ALL. AT NO POINT. Yet, people like you constantly keep quoting him saying "genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task". Go back to school, I am seriously losing tolerance with this stupidity. Enough is enough. Don't make up shit. Show me an exact quote where he says something sexist and explain it. Don't make sweeping lying statements like this.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    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.
    - dustinmoris 9y ago
      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 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
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        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.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> 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."

alkonaut 9y ago

> Science by definition can't be sexist. 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.

monktastic1 9y ago
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.
dustinmoris 9y ago
Well I can tell you exactly what you misunderstood: The English language. You are making shit up, because at no point in this whole memo did the author use the word "unsuitable" or "suitable" AT ALL. AT NO POINT. Yet, people like you constantly keep quoting him saying "genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task". Go back to school, I am seriously losing tolerance with this stupidity. Enough is enough. Don't make up shit. Show me an exact quote where he says something sexist and explain it. Don't make sweeping lying statements like this.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  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.
  - dustinmoris 9y ago
    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 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
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      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.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> 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."