3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoAgain: 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.
- cpncrunch 9y agoSo why exactly is it sexist? He argues that's google's method of achieving diversity is counter-productive and unfair, and he proposes some alternative ways of increasing diversity, which may work better. Doesn't really sound sexist to me.