6 ms·

From the article: > An article about women engineers, published in 1908, has a promising start: If women are attending technical schools and are not legally bl

From the article: > An article about women engineers, published in 1908, has a promising start: If women are attending technical schools and are not legally blocked from working in a forge or firm, why do they face so many obstacles to employment? A reader in 2020 who discovers such a socially progressive question in the archives of Scientific American anticipates a discussion of sex discrimination. > Alas, no. Author Karl Drews explains it simply: the obstacles “are inherent in the nature of the case and are due to women's comparative weakness, both bodily and mental.” He elaborates: “The work of the engineer is creative in the highest sense of the word. From his brain spring the marvels of modern industry,” in contrast to women, “whose notable performances have hitherto been confined to the reproductive arts.” From you: > In much the same way as we dismiss "racism" today as backwards and scientifically unsound, in 50 or 100 years time, "gender studies" will be considered implausible and frowned upon. ...So are you proposing we're going back to gender essentialism?

anoxor 6y ago
There is a whole lot of nuance and middle ground between gender essentialism and what is currently put forth as scholarship in the humanities. Criticizm of that scholarship and field is well warrented given the mess it is making. The evidence and defeatablity that is built into STEM has been thrown to the wind for option stated as fact in "gender studies" that you are a bigot or other fun word if you disagree with.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  > The evidence and defeatablity that is built into STEM I don't know if evidence and defeatability is really built into STEM. I'm an academic in computer science, and in the field of computer science we recently had a PhD candidate commit suicide in a major academic institution due to corrupt approval rings in major conferences. Similarly, several fields of STEM have reproducibility crises, including my own field, as well as politically motivated science as is being explored in this article. In theory, STEM has evidence and has defeatability through the scientific method. In reality, the people working in the field of knowledge are still spending most of their time wading through bullshit and only taking the opinions of their friends to be true.
  - anoxor 6y ago
    I totally agree. I have a chem PdD and have seen the imperfections of the system. I would also suggest that corrupt approval rings being a problem is evidence of defeatablity - although a very messy one. You lose your job if shown to be corrupt. In chem as well, something like 30 % of published work is unreproducible, but there is at least a mechanism where that can be fixed. The example I like is white fragility. Agree with it - affirm it's truth. Disagree with it - affirm it's truth. Such a simple circular logic that an undergrad shouldn't get a passing grade on the work is now near secular gospel.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      If you have a Chem PhD where did you gain the expertise on the humanities to be able to summarize and dismiss it so quickly? I see similar generalizations frequently, but rarely links to primary sources.
      - anoxor 6y ago
        Because I was told by my dean of STEM that "it's not advantageous for this position that you're a white scientist" followed by "You came from a well-educated family right?". My lower class farmer dad that that was funny. I was forced to get up to speed pretty quickly and strongly motivated to do so. people don't understand how far this is gone in the college system right now, and how that is now being incorporated into every curriculum and taught to every student as what seems to me to be a secular morality that you would be an immoral person to not agree with. Check out table a and B from the following Berkeley initiative. there's a clear biased towards diverse candidates and diversity is simply defined as non-white straight or male. https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      > You lose your job if shown to be corrupt This is not true in computer science. There have been no major oustings following the literal suicide of a PhD candidate who had directly witnessed the corruption for themselves.
- sophacles 6y ago
  > Criticizm of that scholarship and field is well warrented given the mess it is making. What mess? Can you expand on this claim?
  - anoxor 6y ago
    to quote from "how to be an antiracist" - a best selling book during this last year https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/08/10/ibram-x-kendi-prophet-of-anti-racism/ https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/08/10/ibram-x-k... >The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. . . . The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. I'm not super fond of the idea of indefinite discrimination on race. How do we run those numbers, who decides what is or isn't a good policy, does that change with the politics of who is president every 4 or 8 years? Especially because I didn't ask to be born my race or sex, but I was told by my dean of STEM that "it's not advantageous for this position you are a white scientist" followed by "you came from a well-educated family right?". My lower class farmer dad thought that was funny. I've since left the college system due to what I feel is now labled antiracist discrimination.
    - sophacles 6y ago
      I have to pay extra in my electricity, phone and postal fees to cover the extra expense of rural service as mandated by law. (and phone service, and a whole bunch more) I have to pony up some insane percentage of my taxes for farm subsidies. A bunch of my tax money goes to the schools set up in rural areas too. I have to pay for a bunch of county roads that are rarely used by a handful of families out in the country. I don't get to forgo taxes on gasoline I use to get to work. These are all laws of equitable discrimination - prior to them cities were getting ahead of rural areas by leaps and bounds, so the laws were passed to help rural folks maintain an equitable place in society. By having these in place it's much harder to point to a person and say "look they are from the country, they're not going to be good at tech since they didn't have access as a kid". Growing up rural is just as much an accident of birth as race, why are you not complaining about all the special benefits you got? I could make a pretty solid argument that I was was the victim of equitable discrimination since I didn't get any rural benefits growing up. Is it because they don't feel special, and that maybe you still had some hardship as a result? The goal of the equitable discrimination you're against is to get that same level of "its not special" (good or bad) for folks of all races, just like it is for folks who grew up in rural places. After that, we can maybe strive for even more equitable society.
bluetomcat 6y ago
> So are you proposing we're going back to gender essentialism? The societal and cultural discourse would likely shift to completely different subjects altogether. Probably people will place little importance on race and gender, and we would have thrown away the model of the world which reasons in terms of oppressing and oppressed groups.
- f38zf5vdt 6y ago
  Such a model has never existed in the history of life on this planet. All creatures compete and discriminate to aid in their continued existence as a species. I think a world in which oppression doesn't exist on some level is perhaps a lifeless moon. To date, if anything, racism is studied more today than ever previously in history. The one exception is that it now includes the opinions of the marginalized.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Bigotry disturbingly is a fungible concept whose basis is only coincidental to actual differences. Rwanda's infamous Tutsi genocide is proof that distinctions may be made arbitrary and there is nothing essential about any difference. If in the darkest of timelines the Nazis had created a "pure" Aryan bloodline and didn't collapse or mutate to something less dysfunctional they would almost certainly go fractal in their divisions until they dropped below the minimal long term viable population number and try to kill their way out of harmful mutations from having a gene droplet instead of a gene pool. Past conceptions have been along different lines and may differ in the future as well. Egyptian Dynasties and Roman Empire had a "are they currently a part of our empire or not Y/N" distinction.
- anoxor 6y ago
  > we would have thrown away the model of the world which reasons in terms of oppressing and oppressed groups The fundamental presupposition of Marxist theory is oppressing and oppressed groups. I don't for one second think this wave of culture is giving up the reasoning of oppressing and oppressed groups ever. The logic game is too easy to play and too easily totally and radically changes their worldview and gets people violently in the streets. Subtle and different forms of marxism are here to stay. It is also not a new logic, just better weaponized.

anoxor 6y ago

There is a whole lot of nuance and middle ground between gender essentialism and what is currently put forth as scholarship in the humanities. Criticizm of that scholarship and field is well warrented given the mess it is making. The evidence and defeatablity that is built into STEM has been thrown to the wind for option stated as fact in "gender studies" that you are a bigot or other fun word if you disagree with.

TeaDrunk 6y ago
> The evidence and defeatablity that is built into STEM I don't know if evidence and defeatability is really built into STEM. I'm an academic in computer science, and in the field of computer science we recently had a PhD candidate commit suicide in a major academic institution due to corrupt approval rings in major conferences. Similarly, several fields of STEM have reproducibility crises, including my own field, as well as politically motivated science as is being explored in this article. In theory, STEM has evidence and has defeatability through the scientific method. In reality, the people working in the field of knowledge are still spending most of their time wading through bullshit and only taking the opinions of their friends to be true.
- anoxor 6y ago
  I totally agree. I have a chem PdD and have seen the imperfections of the system. I would also suggest that corrupt approval rings being a problem is evidence of defeatablity - although a very messy one. You lose your job if shown to be corrupt. In chem as well, something like 30 % of published work is unreproducible, but there is at least a mechanism where that can be fixed. The example I like is white fragility. Agree with it - affirm it's truth. Disagree with it - affirm it's truth. Such a simple circular logic that an undergrad shouldn't get a passing grade on the work is now near secular gospel.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    If you have a Chem PhD where did you gain the expertise on the humanities to be able to summarize and dismiss it so quickly? I see similar generalizations frequently, but rarely links to primary sources.
    - anoxor 6y ago
      Because I was told by my dean of STEM that "it's not advantageous for this position that you're a white scientist" followed by "You came from a well-educated family right?". My lower class farmer dad that that was funny. I was forced to get up to speed pretty quickly and strongly motivated to do so. people don't understand how far this is gone in the college system right now, and how that is now being incorporated into every curriculum and taught to every student as what seems to me to be a secular morality that you would be an immoral person to not agree with. Check out table a and B from the following Berkeley initiative. there's a clear biased towards diverse candidates and diversity is simply defined as non-white straight or male. https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    > You lose your job if shown to be corrupt This is not true in computer science. There have been no major oustings following the literal suicide of a PhD candidate who had directly witnessed the corruption for themselves.
sophacles 6y ago
> Criticizm of that scholarship and field is well warrented given the mess it is making. What mess? Can you expand on this claim?
- anoxor 6y ago
  to quote from "how to be an antiracist" - a best selling book during this last year https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/08/10/ibram-x-kendi-prophet-of-anti-racism/ https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/08/10/ibram-x-k... >The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. . . . The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. I'm not super fond of the idea of indefinite discrimination on race. How do we run those numbers, who decides what is or isn't a good policy, does that change with the politics of who is president every 4 or 8 years? Especially because I didn't ask to be born my race or sex, but I was told by my dean of STEM that "it's not advantageous for this position you are a white scientist" followed by "you came from a well-educated family right?". My lower class farmer dad thought that was funny. I've since left the college system due to what I feel is now labled antiracist discrimination.
  - sophacles 6y ago
    I have to pay extra in my electricity, phone and postal fees to cover the extra expense of rural service as mandated by law. (and phone service, and a whole bunch more) I have to pony up some insane percentage of my taxes for farm subsidies. A bunch of my tax money goes to the schools set up in rural areas too. I have to pay for a bunch of county roads that are rarely used by a handful of families out in the country. I don't get to forgo taxes on gasoline I use to get to work. These are all laws of equitable discrimination - prior to them cities were getting ahead of rural areas by leaps and bounds, so the laws were passed to help rural folks maintain an equitable place in society. By having these in place it's much harder to point to a person and say "look they are from the country, they're not going to be good at tech since they didn't have access as a kid". Growing up rural is just as much an accident of birth as race, why are you not complaining about all the special benefits you got? I could make a pretty solid argument that I was was the victim of equitable discrimination since I didn't get any rural benefits growing up. Is it because they don't feel special, and that maybe you still had some hardship as a result? The goal of the equitable discrimination you're against is to get that same level of "its not special" (good or bad) for folks of all races, just like it is for folks who grew up in rural places. After that, we can maybe strive for even more equitable society.

bluetomcat 6y ago

> So are you proposing we're going back to gender essentialism? The societal and cultural discourse would likely shift to completely different subjects altogether. Probably people will place little importance on race and gender, and we would have thrown away the model of the world which reasons in terms of oppressing and oppressed groups.

f38zf5vdt 6y ago
Such a model has never existed in the history of life on this planet. All creatures compete and discriminate to aid in their continued existence as a species. I think a world in which oppression doesn't exist on some level is perhaps a lifeless moon. To date, if anything, racism is studied more today than ever previously in history. The one exception is that it now includes the opinions of the marginalized.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Bigotry disturbingly is a fungible concept whose basis is only coincidental to actual differences. Rwanda's infamous Tutsi genocide is proof that distinctions may be made arbitrary and there is nothing essential about any difference. If in the darkest of timelines the Nazis had created a "pure" Aryan bloodline and didn't collapse or mutate to something less dysfunctional they would almost certainly go fractal in their divisions until they dropped below the minimal long term viable population number and try to kill their way out of harmful mutations from having a gene droplet instead of a gene pool. Past conceptions have been along different lines and may differ in the future as well. Egyptian Dynasties and Roman Empire had a "are they currently a part of our empire or not Y/N" distinction.
anoxor 6y ago
> we would have thrown away the model of the world which reasons in terms of oppressing and oppressed groups The fundamental presupposition of Marxist theory is oppressing and oppressed groups. I don't for one second think this wave of culture is giving up the reasoning of oppressing and oppressed groups ever. The logic game is too easy to play and too easily totally and radically changes their worldview and gets people violently in the streets. Subtle and different forms of marxism are here to stay. It is also not a new logic, just better weaponized.