4 ms·

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 certai

by 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.

by zasz 15y ago

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.