4 ms·

I think number two is a very important point. My problem is that the entire media, including this article, is using it with ill intent to paint men as sexist.

pron 9y ago
But that's the point. The term "sexist" itself, at least in its scholarly meaning, does not imply intent. Sexism is a feature of a social structure where women are granted significantly less power than men. The prevailing hypothesis -- which has a lot of supporting evidence -- is that we are all sexist, men and women alike, merely by virtue of being socialized in a sexist society. When people first discovered microbes and claimed that people were spreading diseases by, say, not washing their hands properly, they did not mean that people were spreading disease intentionally, but it was nevertheless a fact that they were. But to understand why, you had to know about germs (which are invisible to the naked eye, and were only known to those who study the subject), and you had to be proactive in order not to spread diseased.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  Minor problem: that's EXACTLY what the media and outrage engine is specifying.
  - pron 9y ago
    That's not what I see, so I guess both our views on what the media and "outrage engine" are doing are very much shaped by our political views.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=sexist+google+memo&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlpvW2oObVAhVK6GMKHQRLCDgQ_AUICigB&biw=1859&bih=990 https://www.google.com/search?q=sexist+google+memo&source=ln...
      - pron 9y ago
        What am I supposed to see here? (Are you, by any chance, be confusing the word "sexism" with the word "misogyny"?)
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        You're supposed to see that the media considers it to be malevolently sexist. Redefining the terminology so that "sexism" somehow is a neutral term is, for lack of a better phrase, "not an argument".
        pron 9y ago
        I don’t see it. I certainly see many references to it as a bad thing that needs addressing, just like germs are a real and serious problem that needs fighting, but that doesn’t mean that the people who spread germs do it with the intent to cause others harm. So I don’t see “malevolent sexism”, and I don’t see references to Damore as a misogynist.
- naasking 9y ago
  While that would be a nice narrative, I don't think it matches reality. If it did, the people outraged by apparent sexism would be trying to educate the sexists instead of getting them fired. Certainly such people exist, but they're drowned out by the outrage machine that's trying to take away their livelihood.
  - pron 9y ago
    I find it funny how the few of men whose livelihood may have been affected by unfair allegations is compared to the millions of women who are harassed while earning their livelihood and/or pushed away from earning one, every year, for centuries. Frankly, I'm amazed at how level headed the "outrage machine" is given at how much bigger the real outrage should have been. Also, those who want or are willing to be educated have plenty of resources at their disposal. The evidence is so overwhelming that there can be few if any those who are exposed to it and yet remain unconvinced. At this point, it's mostly diehards that are left, and the reason they are left is precisely because they don't want to see the evidence. Dawkins doesn't really think he can educate all evolution deniers on apparent evolution, and we don't think we can educate all those who wish to perpetuate sexism.
    - naasking 9y ago
      Your analogy to evolution is a textbook false equivalency. That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd. And your patent acceptance that outrage is a legitimate response to these scenarios highlights exactly the problem with how this has been playing out. Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly.
      - pron 9y ago
        > That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd. It really isn't, but seeing how adamant you are not to study the topic, I have no idea how you'd know whether it's absurd or not. But you are forced to declare the subject absurd, as that is the only thing that can justify, in your mind, not even bothering to examine it with any care (as, I assume, you consider yourself otherwise curious), which is what you want; namely, you don't want to see the fossils, and I really can't make you. > Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly. Oh! You got me there! But one should bear in mind that creationism isn't what condemned millions to dependence and humiliation. A wise man once said that it's easy to remain cool-headed about other people's problems.

pron 9y ago

But that's the point. The term "sexist" itself, at least in its scholarly meaning, does not imply intent. Sexism is a feature of a social structure where women are granted significantly less power than men. The prevailing hypothesis -- which has a lot of supporting evidence -- is that we are all sexist, men and women alike, merely by virtue of being socialized in a sexist society. When people first discovered microbes and claimed that people were spreading diseases by, say, not washing their hands properly, they did not mean that people were spreading disease intentionally, but it was nevertheless a fact that they were. But to understand why, you had to know about germs (which are invisible to the naked eye, and were only known to those who study the subject), and you had to be proactive in order not to spread diseased.

deepnotderp 9y ago
Minor problem: that's EXACTLY what the media and outrage engine is specifying.
- pron 9y ago
  That's not what I see, so I guess both our views on what the media and "outrage engine" are doing are very much shaped by our political views.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=sexist+google+memo&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlpvW2oObVAhVK6GMKHQRLCDgQ_AUICigB&biw=1859&bih=990 https://www.google.com/search?q=sexist+google+memo&source=ln...
    - pron 9y ago
      What am I supposed to see here? (Are you, by any chance, be confusing the word "sexism" with the word "misogyny"?)
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        You're supposed to see that the media considers it to be malevolently sexist. Redefining the terminology so that "sexism" somehow is a neutral term is, for lack of a better phrase, "not an argument".
        pron 9y ago
        I don’t see it. I certainly see many references to it as a bad thing that needs addressing, just like germs are a real and serious problem that needs fighting, but that doesn’t mean that the people who spread germs do it with the intent to cause others harm. So I don’t see “malevolent sexism”, and I don’t see references to Damore as a misogynist.
naasking 9y ago
While that would be a nice narrative, I don't think it matches reality. If it did, the people outraged by apparent sexism would be trying to educate the sexists instead of getting them fired. Certainly such people exist, but they're drowned out by the outrage machine that's trying to take away their livelihood.
- pron 9y ago
  I find it funny how the few of men whose livelihood may have been affected by unfair allegations is compared to the millions of women who are harassed while earning their livelihood and/or pushed away from earning one, every year, for centuries. Frankly, I'm amazed at how level headed the "outrage machine" is given at how much bigger the real outrage should have been. Also, those who want or are willing to be educated have plenty of resources at their disposal. The evidence is so overwhelming that there can be few if any those who are exposed to it and yet remain unconvinced. At this point, it's mostly diehards that are left, and the reason they are left is precisely because they don't want to see the evidence. Dawkins doesn't really think he can educate all evolution deniers on apparent evolution, and we don't think we can educate all those who wish to perpetuate sexism.
  - naasking 9y ago
    Your analogy to evolution is a textbook false equivalency. That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd. And your patent acceptance that outrage is a legitimate response to these scenarios highlights exactly the problem with how this has been playing out. Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly.
    - pron 9y ago
      > That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd. It really isn't, but seeing how adamant you are not to study the topic, I have no idea how you'd know whether it's absurd or not. But you are forced to declare the subject absurd, as that is the only thing that can justify, in your mind, not even bothering to examine it with any care (as, I assume, you consider yourself otherwise curious), which is what you want; namely, you don't want to see the fossils, and I really can't make you. > Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly. Oh! You got me there! But one should bear in mind that creationism isn't what condemned millions to dependence and humiliation. A wise man once said that it's easy to remain cool-headed about other people's problems.