3 ms·

THIS is exactly what some are afraid of. People taking statements, interpreting them with their own mental models, and coming to the conclusion the person who m

THIS is exactly what some are afraid of. People taking statements, interpreting them with their own mental models, and coming to the conclusion the person who made that statement is x-ist. Your own comment literally provides multiple interpretations of that statement and you chose the "sexist" one to be the default!?

happytoexplain 5y ago
"Implicitly sexist" does not mean "sexist by default". "Implicitly" is a reasonable qualifier here. You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. In English, "very few" implies "very much fewer than the alternative", but in strict logical construction, it does not, hence the parent's point and my remark about being a robot.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. I highly disagree. Imagine this statement in an example context: A: Most fortune 500 companies are lead by men, we need more women at the top. B: Very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. B could either be sexist and imply that fewer women than men are capable, or they could simply state that selecting a random women to promote just because she's a women won't help the situation. The reading you have depends a lot on your biases, given that you have no information about B at all. If you need another example, you can replace "women" with any other subject in this sentence - even fortune 500 CEO's: > Very few Fortune 500 CEOs are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. I bet you can still find people agreeing with that, but it reads a lot less like it implies that a random person not included in the subject group is more capable.
- subjectsigma 5y ago
  > You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. It depends on context. You and I are not robots, so we see an individual sentence by itself and add context. But this isn't good. What if the follow is "And that needs to change. Which is why I'm proud to announce our first scholarship program for female entrepreneurs!" Do you still think the statement is sexist? Do you think the person making the statement is sexist?
- trash99 5y ago
  [dead]

happytoexplain 5y ago

"Implicitly sexist" does not mean "sexist by default". "Implicitly" is a reasonable qualifier here. You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. In English, "very few" implies "very much fewer than the alternative", but in strict logical construction, it does not, hence the parent's point and my remark about being a robot.

Sebb767 5y ago
> You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. I highly disagree. Imagine this statement in an example context: A: Most fortune 500 companies are lead by men, we need more women at the top. B: Very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. B could either be sexist and imply that fewer women than men are capable, or they could simply state that selecting a random women to promote just because she's a women won't help the situation. The reading you have depends a lot on your biases, given that you have no information about B at all. If you need another example, you can replace "women" with any other subject in this sentence - even fortune 500 CEO's: > Very few Fortune 500 CEOs are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. I bet you can still find people agreeing with that, but it reads a lot less like it implies that a random person not included in the subject group is more capable.
subjectsigma 5y ago
> You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. It depends on context. You and I are not robots, so we see an individual sentence by itself and add context. But this isn't good. What if the follow is "And that needs to change. Which is why I'm proud to announce our first scholarship program for female entrepreneurs!" Do you still think the statement is sexist? Do you think the person making the statement is sexist?
trash99 5y ago
[dead]