5 ms·

> The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, Are you sure about that?

aklemm 7y ago
I hope so, but I'm more sure that claiming progressives are trying to deny nature altogether is a useful straw-man for detractors with evidence only from the fringes. But how could you and I be more sure of what's really going on?
- LanceH 7y ago
  Perhaps the progressive movement should dig a little deeper for "proof" that a mere difference in rates of participation. The mere fact more men do something seems to constitute both proof that there is systematic sexism and that those males who are over represented are sexist. It gets tiring.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    The problem is it's basically impossible to raise a kid free from acculturation about gender norms to get the best data on nature vs nurture, even if the home environment is set up to be neutral about gender roles they're going to interact with the outside world which still has a lot of gender bias in job roles. My stance is if there is a natural preference it's probably slight and even if it isn't we should build a system that silos people into jobs because most people like them may prefer to do a particular thing.
    - LanceH 7y ago
      It's not just about denying nature, but denying all the choices along the way by so many parties. You see something like, Company XYZ hires 2/3's men for something. They are called sexist, the people working there are sexist, it is a hostile work environment, etc... and it's the 2/3's number that is offered as "proof". Further, just proposing that nature is the cause can get a person fired. My stance is that lack of proof is being met with lack of proof by a group that is tired of being the target of constant accusations.
  - mhuffman 7y ago
    > Perhaps the progressive movement should dig a little deeper for "proof" that a mere difference in rates of participation. This is the basis of "critical X theory", the new non-scientific, default theory for all of society's woes! So if there are any differences between two groups of people, it is assumed from the outset that there is a systematic (evil!) force causing that difference, typically to the detriment of a (perceived, in the case of women) minority group! So, for example, if there are more men in high-paying jobs, regardless of what the job is, that is Prima facie evidence of current systematic sexism against women to keep them out. Same with the fact that there are higher rates of Black people in prison, or lower standardized test scores for Black children are, in themselves, proof that there is current systematic racial bias against them by White people. This has resulted in incredible "solutions" from adherents to this type of theory to this, such as The Progressive Stack, in classrooms[2] It is noteworthy, that this does not go the other way around! So, for example, the fact that such a small rate of East Asians are in prison, or higher rates of high salaries, or higher standardized test scores, are not evidence of pro-East-Asian bias, it is simply accepted as a combination of nature and nurture that works out for them! However, the fact that a small percentage of East Asians are represented in film and TV, is taken as evidence of coordinated, systemic bias to keep them out. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack

I hope so, but I'm more sure that claiming progressives are trying to deny nature altogether is a useful straw-man for detractors with evidence only from the fringes. But how could you and I be more sure of what's really going on?

LanceH 7y ago
Perhaps the progressive movement should dig a little deeper for "proof" that a mere difference in rates of participation. The mere fact more men do something seems to constitute both proof that there is systematic sexism and that those males who are over represented are sexist. It gets tiring.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  The problem is it's basically impossible to raise a kid free from acculturation about gender norms to get the best data on nature vs nurture, even if the home environment is set up to be neutral about gender roles they're going to interact with the outside world which still has a lot of gender bias in job roles. My stance is if there is a natural preference it's probably slight and even if it isn't we should build a system that silos people into jobs because most people like them may prefer to do a particular thing.
  - LanceH 7y ago
    It's not just about denying nature, but denying all the choices along the way by so many parties. You see something like, Company XYZ hires 2/3's men for something. They are called sexist, the people working there are sexist, it is a hostile work environment, etc... and it's the 2/3's number that is offered as "proof". Further, just proposing that nature is the cause can get a person fired. My stance is that lack of proof is being met with lack of proof by a group that is tired of being the target of constant accusations.
- mhuffman 7y ago
  > Perhaps the progressive movement should dig a little deeper for "proof" that a mere difference in rates of participation. This is the basis of "critical X theory", the new non-scientific, default theory for all of society's woes! So if there are any differences between two groups of people, it is assumed from the outset that there is a systematic (evil!) force causing that difference, typically to the detriment of a (perceived, in the case of women) minority group! So, for example, if there are more men in high-paying jobs, regardless of what the job is, that is Prima facie evidence of current systematic sexism against women to keep them out. Same with the fact that there are higher rates of Black people in prison, or lower standardized test scores for Black children are, in themselves, proof that there is current systematic racial bias against them by White people. This has resulted in incredible "solutions" from adherents to this type of theory to this, such as The Progressive Stack, in classrooms[2] It is noteworthy, that this does not go the other way around! So, for example, the fact that such a small rate of East Asians are in prison, or higher rates of high salaries, or higher standardized test scores, are not evidence of pro-East-Asian bias, it is simply accepted as a combination of nature and nurture that works out for them! However, the fact that a small percentage of East Asians are represented in film and TV, is taken as evidence of coordinated, systemic bias to keep them out. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack