4 ms·
It wasn't that long ago that women made up close to 0% of graduates in law and medicine. There were lots of scientific-sounding essentialist arguments made abou
by chrismealy 16y ago
It wasn't that long ago that women made up close to 0% of graduates in law and medicine. There were lots of scientific-sounding essentialist arguments made about gender to explain that. Nowadays close to 50% of graduates in medicine and law are women. Remember than when you hear people spouting off about why women aren't suited to programming.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0300.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0300.p...
- yummyfajitas 16y agoTranslation: people who disagreed with me were incorrect on a different topic. Therefore, everyone who disagrees with me on this peripherally related topic is also likely to be incorrect. See the logical fallacy?
- starwed 16y agoOoh, it's the strawman! Oh... you meant in the OP?
- vbtemp 16y agoThere was no logically fallacy, he was just making a relevant point.
- cgoddard 16y agoPeripherally related is really stretching it. The way I understood chrismealy's argument is this: Biological essentialist arguments were previously used to explain the disparity of men and women in law and medicine. Now that we know that those arguments were critically flawed and did not reflect reality, we should be very hesitant to support similar arguments being used to explain the lack of women in STEM disciplines.