6 ms·

I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I don't think anyone is disregarding women right to self determination by making an observation that is ob

I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I don't think anyone is disregarding women right to self determination by making an observation that is obvious. There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. There's nothing wrong with that, do we need to pretend that men and women are equal to grant equal rights to both? So this woman is an exception, minority if you prefer, but so what? I feel that is rather frustrating that people doesn't accept simple facts because they are not fashionable in today's ethics or are not politically correct. Everytime someone touches a sensitive subject concerning a group, there comes the sh*tstorm "you're stupid, I am the proof of the contrary". This is particularly sad among circles were one would expect to hear opinions of wise people. I guess even wise people have a hard time getting rid of taboos.

zasz 15y ago
It's not clear that some roles are genuinely best filled by women, and some by men. There is still plenty of institutional sexism that pushes people into certain roles. For example, many women in high-powered careers are forced out after they have children. Here is a link to a book on the subject: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-are-moms-giving-careers/#.TuWoz3M4NCy http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-... Here is an excerpt: "Married to fellow professionals, who face the same pressures at work that they do, women are home alone and go home because they have been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain flexibility or, for those who were able to, because they found themselves marginalized and stigmatized, negatively reinforced for trying to hold on their careers after becoming mothers." You can't look at the general pattern of women failing to pursue their own startups and assume that this is because they actually chose to do so. You might as well step back in time and assume that the reason black people were picking cotton instead of determining their own fates is because they were biologically inferior. Culture matters.
- skeptical 15y ago
  For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not clear" is "there's no scientific proof", which is a totally different thing. You may argue that it's just something I believe in, but I'm ok everyone else's skepticism, I don't want to convince anybody of anything, but heck, don't disregard my opinion because of your taboos. Either way, even it wouldn't be clear, it wouldn't be clear that I'm wrong either. I agree with you that culture matters, and indeed people have been victim of discrimination countless times throughout mankind history. But you are afraid to admit that other aspects might matter too, because it touches your taboos. You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white. Now, quite frankly, I don't care about that subject, but would dare to discuss it or would you just claim that discussion is out of your ethical boundaries? It's not a nice topic to discuss, but because of that you can't just pretend there's nothing to discuss. I'm just saying: If your arguments are limited by taboos then your opinion can't be of much value.
  - jtheory 15y ago
    If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. It's fine to form an opinion based on limited and partial data; you have to. But the strength of your opinion should be based on how much data you have to support it, and you should revisit it when someone presents you with data that contradicts it (as the grandparent post attempted to do). I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. On the subject of skepticism -- it's perhaps worth mentioning that James Watson is an accomplished scientist, but he's not considered an expert on the study & measures of human intelligence any more than you are. Arguments from authority should at least offer an authority in that field, not just from any field.
    - skeptical 15y ago
      If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. Well observed, but no. What makes me skeptical about many things is having a clear opinion/view about other things. For me that's the true essence of skepticism. I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? I didn't make any such point. And no, I'm not arguing that. But the phrasing of your question does prove my point about how afraid people is about some debates. That is particularly ironic because they seem to be so certain about it, why should they be afraid to debate it? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. I don't think you really mean it, sorry. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. Yep, I really don't think you mean it. Starting by the 'individual != average' is a common symptom of such taboos. By doing so you try to nullify any consideration about a group of people, but you go on and do just that to prove your point whenever necessary. For the record, I share the same opinion as you about the topic. I might be wrong here, of course, but I'm getting the feeling that you are assuming I'm 'white' and that that is strongly affecting your reasoning. You might stop to re-think for a little while. Just saying.
tryitnow 15y ago
The author makes the very good point that what people "want" changes over time. For example, in the 1960s only a small fraction of a given law school class was female. Now almost 50% of law school graduates in a given year are female. And I am sure people in 1965 were saying the same things about the differences between men and women and how those differences were reflected in law school classes. The author's very valid concern is that one cannot draw the conclusions Penelope Trunk is drawing. The evidence just isn't in and quite frankly never will be in because society changes, expectations change, and preferences change. I don't know how many startups will be founded by women 40 years from now. Neither do you. Which is exactly why the the author is writing "STFU about what women want." When we make assertions about what other people want we end up categorizing them without sufficient evidence, which ultimately leads to poor decision-making.
wpietri 15y ago
Making an observation isn't in itself problematic. It's all the bullshit that people tack on after that. To wit: There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. This is either tautological or fatuous. You've gone from a simple observation (in 2011, some jobs are held at different rates by men and women) and suggested that it's somehow a natural feature of the universe, like the gravitational constant. There are a lot of possible explanations for the different occupational frequencies, and you seized on one of them with no proof and no apparent thought about alternatives. 200 years ago, women (and, say, black people) weren't doctors. People argued then, as you do now, that the current situation was just the outcome of natural differences. They said that not because it was true (it wasn't) or because they had any real evidence (they didn't). They said it because it was convenient for them to believe that.
- skeptical 15y ago
  I just made a simple observation yes. Whatever reason we find will fallback to men being different than women. That is in fact the only think we can say for sure. The outcome might not be fair, but it's not by denying this fact that we will make things better. As for you example, it's flawed. 200 years ago doctors played a very different role in society of those of today's doctors. If you look carefully at today's society and try to find a social role more like that of a 1800's doctor, you'll probably find a job that is still done mostly by men. Is it fair? Indeed no. But it is in fact a good example how we can improve women rights by going to the root of the problem without fear of being political incorrect. I might not have any evidence, but nor have you.
  - gordonguthrie 15y ago
    I am sorry. There were few women doctors in the UK because prior to the 1972 Sex Equality Act the Medical Schools had quotas of between 5% and 15% for female students. When that barrier went the number of female doctors took off like a rocket. Likewise with the black middle class in the US - once the quota's that kept African Americans out of Universities ended, lo! magic!
wazoox 15y ago
> I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I'm getting really tired of the old stratagem consisting of pretending that social norms are a natural given. Because you know, this old beast have been beaten to death for centuries, time to move on. Recipe for success: > There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by black and some mostly by white people. That's because black and white are different. I know, it's quite obvious that men and women are different. But does it count nowadays? Sure, a man is more fit than a woman to push the plough behind a horse, or cart around stones in a wheelbarrow. However these activities are of no relevance in our modern world. Similarly we could argue that black people are less at risk of skin cancer by exposure to sunlight, and therefore are better fit for street work. See what I mean? It would be so nice of you to reconsider your position to the light of the last 50 years of anthropology and social sciences.

zasz 15y ago

It's not clear that some roles are genuinely best filled by women, and some by men. There is still plenty of institutional sexism that pushes people into certain roles. For example, many women in high-powered careers are forced out after they have children. Here is a link to a book on the subject: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-are-moms-giving-careers/#.TuWoz3M4NCy http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-... Here is an excerpt: "Married to fellow professionals, who face the same pressures at work that they do, women are home alone and go home because they have been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain flexibility or, for those who were able to, because they found themselves marginalized and stigmatized, negatively reinforced for trying to hold on their careers after becoming mothers." You can't look at the general pattern of women failing to pursue their own startups and assume that this is because they actually chose to do so. You might as well step back in time and assume that the reason black people were picking cotton instead of determining their own fates is because they were biologically inferior. Culture matters.

skeptical 15y ago
For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not clear" is "there's no scientific proof", which is a totally different thing. You may argue that it's just something I believe in, but I'm ok everyone else's skepticism, I don't want to convince anybody of anything, but heck, don't disregard my opinion because of your taboos. Either way, even it wouldn't be clear, it wouldn't be clear that I'm wrong either. I agree with you that culture matters, and indeed people have been victim of discrimination countless times throughout mankind history. But you are afraid to admit that other aspects might matter too, because it touches your taboos. You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white. Now, quite frankly, I don't care about that subject, but would dare to discuss it or would you just claim that discussion is out of your ethical boundaries? It's not a nice topic to discuss, but because of that you can't just pretend there's nothing to discuss. I'm just saying: If your arguments are limited by taboos then your opinion can't be of much value.
- jtheory 15y ago
  If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. It's fine to form an opinion based on limited and partial data; you have to. But the strength of your opinion should be based on how much data you have to support it, and you should revisit it when someone presents you with data that contradicts it (as the grandparent post attempted to do). I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. On the subject of skepticism -- it's perhaps worth mentioning that James Watson is an accomplished scientist, but he's not considered an expert on the study & measures of human intelligence any more than you are. Arguments from authority should at least offer an authority in that field, not just from any field.
  - skeptical 15y ago
    If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. Well observed, but no. What makes me skeptical about many things is having a clear opinion/view about other things. For me that's the true essence of skepticism. I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? I didn't make any such point. And no, I'm not arguing that. But the phrasing of your question does prove my point about how afraid people is about some debates. That is particularly ironic because they seem to be so certain about it, why should they be afraid to debate it? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. I don't think you really mean it, sorry. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. Yep, I really don't think you mean it. Starting by the 'individual != average' is a common symptom of such taboos. By doing so you try to nullify any consideration about a group of people, but you go on and do just that to prove your point whenever necessary. For the record, I share the same opinion as you about the topic. I might be wrong here, of course, but I'm getting the feeling that you are assuming I'm 'white' and that that is strongly affecting your reasoning. You might stop to re-think for a little while. Just saying.

tryitnow 15y ago

The author makes the very good point that what people "want" changes over time. For example, in the 1960s only a small fraction of a given law school class was female. Now almost 50% of law school graduates in a given year are female. And I am sure people in 1965 were saying the same things about the differences between men and women and how those differences were reflected in law school classes. The author's very valid concern is that one cannot draw the conclusions Penelope Trunk is drawing. The evidence just isn't in and quite frankly never will be in because society changes, expectations change, and preferences change. I don't know how many startups will be founded by women 40 years from now. Neither do you. Which is exactly why the the author is writing "STFU about what women want." When we make assertions about what other people want we end up categorizing them without sufficient evidence, which ultimately leads to poor decision-making.

wpietri 15y ago

Making an observation isn't in itself problematic. It's all the bullshit that people tack on after that. To wit: There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. This is either tautological or fatuous. You've gone from a simple observation (in 2011, some jobs are held at different rates by men and women) and suggested that it's somehow a natural feature of the universe, like the gravitational constant. There are a lot of possible explanations for the different occupational frequencies, and you seized on one of them with no proof and no apparent thought about alternatives. 200 years ago, women (and, say, black people) weren't doctors. People argued then, as you do now, that the current situation was just the outcome of natural differences. They said that not because it was true (it wasn't) or because they had any real evidence (they didn't). They said it because it was convenient for them to believe that.

skeptical 15y ago
I just made a simple observation yes. Whatever reason we find will fallback to men being different than women. That is in fact the only think we can say for sure. The outcome might not be fair, but it's not by denying this fact that we will make things better. As for you example, it's flawed. 200 years ago doctors played a very different role in society of those of today's doctors. If you look carefully at today's society and try to find a social role more like that of a 1800's doctor, you'll probably find a job that is still done mostly by men. Is it fair? Indeed no. But it is in fact a good example how we can improve women rights by going to the root of the problem without fear of being political incorrect. I might not have any evidence, but nor have you.
- gordonguthrie 15y ago
  I am sorry. There were few women doctors in the UK because prior to the 1972 Sex Equality Act the Medical Schools had quotas of between 5% and 15% for female students. When that barrier went the number of female doctors took off like a rocket. Likewise with the black middle class in the US - once the quota's that kept African Americans out of Universities ended, lo! magic!

wazoox 15y ago

> I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I'm getting really tired of the old stratagem consisting of pretending that social norms are a natural given. Because you know, this old beast have been beaten to death for centuries, time to move on. Recipe for success: > There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by black and some mostly by white people. That's because black and white are different. I know, it's quite obvious that men and women are different. But does it count nowadays? Sure, a man is more fit than a woman to push the plough behind a horse, or cart around stones in a wheelbarrow. However these activities are of no relevance in our modern world. Similarly we could argue that black people are less at risk of skin cancer by exposure to sunlight, and therefore are better fit for street work. See what I mean? It would be so nice of you to reconsider your position to the light of the last 50 years of anthropology and social sciences.