3 ms·

> What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. ...which theref

> What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. ...which therefore explains the lack of women in tech and leadership. People are taking exception to the latter claim: that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. > I can't imagine how sheltered of a life you'd have to live to not be exposed to this in real life, or more appropriately, how intellectually dishonest you'd have to be to pretend you've never noticed. You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made.

mistermann 9y ago
> that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. Did you use justifies instead of explains accidentally, or is that actually your understanding? > The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. Have you been reading the same discussions as I have? > You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made. The irony.
- nodamage 9y ago
  Yes. It is one thing to acknowledge that biological differences between men and women exist. It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership, and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership As it is to claim that the reason for so few women in the tech and leadership is due to sexism, no? Oops, I guess not, there I go with my old fashioned misogynistic presumption of innocence. Silly me thinking the onus should be on the person demanding special treatment to prove the need, when of course the onus should be on the person providing that special treatment to prove why it isn't needed. Guilty until proven innocent, it's a brave and confident new world.
    - nodamage 9y ago
      I never made that claim, nor do I think such a claim is accurate. But since you seem to be more interested in being snarky rather than engaging the conversation in good faith I think it's time for me to move on here.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > I never made that claim, nor do I think such a claim is accurate. Wait, then what was "and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech" all about? I'm now in the position of having absolutely no idea what you are fighting for....it's not for programs to increase female representation, I presume it's not against such programs.....so what is it then? I guess we'll never know, which is fairly common in these conversations, because simply asking seems to be too much to ask. Edit: (Sticking around to dole out some downvotes though I see, that'll teach me!)

mistermann 9y ago

> that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. Did you use justifies instead of explains accidentally, or is that actually your understanding? > The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. Have you been reading the same discussions as I have? > You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made. The irony.

nodamage 9y ago
Yes. It is one thing to acknowledge that biological differences between men and women exist. It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership, and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership As it is to claim that the reason for so few women in the tech and leadership is due to sexism, no? Oops, I guess not, there I go with my old fashioned misogynistic presumption of innocence. Silly me thinking the onus should be on the person demanding special treatment to prove the need, when of course the onus should be on the person providing that special treatment to prove why it isn't needed. Guilty until proven innocent, it's a brave and confident new world.
  - nodamage 9y ago
    I never made that claim, nor do I think such a claim is accurate. But since you seem to be more interested in being snarky rather than engaging the conversation in good faith I think it's time for me to move on here.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > I never made that claim, nor do I think such a claim is accurate. Wait, then what was "and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech" all about? I'm now in the position of having absolutely no idea what you are fighting for....it's not for programs to increase female representation, I presume it's not against such programs.....so what is it then? I guess we'll never know, which is fairly common in these conversations, because simply asking seems to be too much to ask. Edit: (Sticking around to dole out some downvotes though I see, that'll teach me!)