4 ms·

I don't think that is what commenter is saying. I, personally, of course defer to nicknames and pronouns. I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-

I don't think that is what commenter is saying. I, personally, of course defer to nicknames and pronouns. I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious. Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.

klyrs 5y ago
> Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
sophacles 5y ago
It's certainly consistent. Worldview happens as a result of experiences - if ones biological sex and/or gender is used as a reason to allow or deny certain experiences to someone, then maybe it affects their worldview, no? This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense. (Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas. [1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
- handmodel 5y ago
  That's not quite what I'm saying. It seems like you are advocating a gender blind policy - one in which no one is every denied treatment or eduction based on their gender. And one in which teachers do not insult girl students and make sure to have examples that would interest them. However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)

klyrs 5y ago

> Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics. This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?

sophacles 5y ago

It's certainly consistent. Worldview happens as a result of experiences - if ones biological sex and/or gender is used as a reason to allow or deny certain experiences to someone, then maybe it affects their worldview, no? This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense. (Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas. [1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)

handmodel 5y ago
That's not quite what I'm saying. It seems like you are advocating a gender blind policy - one in which no one is every denied treatment or eduction based on their gender. And one in which teachers do not insult girl students and make sure to have examples that would interest them. However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)