4 ms·
Except, they're _not_ just assumptions of sexism. You should at least skim the MIT study she refers to in her article (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html h
by adamesque 16y ago
Except, they're _not_ just assumptions of sexism. You should at least skim the MIT study she refers to in her article (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html). It was an eye-opening, empirical study showing that discrimination did exist – and that it didn't look like ordinary bigotry.
I can't help but think that it's only possible to get worked up about reverse discrimination if you don't believe that the "forward" discrimination exists in the first place.
- alanh 16y agoYou’re absolutely right about “the only way people would get worked up about reverse discrimination,” of course. What I object to is her assigning evil intentions to people she’s never met.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Confusion 16y agoYou can also get worked up about reverse discrimination if you fail to understand how it differs from regular discrimination. Using the same word for different things can throw off the mind in surprising ways.