3 ms·

I almost wish the author had included this trope too: "If I begin a conversation about sexism I am experiencing, that means that sexism against men must immedia

I almost wish the author had included this trope too: "If I begin a conversation about sexism I am experiencing, that means that sexism against men must immediately become part of the focus of the conversation". It's not that those issues are unimportant, but does it not strike you as strange that the very first comment doesn't discuss the content of the article directly, but does make sure to bring up sexism against men? It's not the first time this has happened, either, on HN or elsewhere. (And, sure, this may be the first time you've brought it up. But just like the other issues she's bringing up, the "what about the men who are discriminated against?" response is a durable and ubiquitous trend. Check any other HN thread that mentions sexism if you don't believe me. It therefore becomes very annoying to people trying to have a conversation about the persistent sexism against women in technology/maths/science spaces.)

return0 14y ago
No, my main point was that it's not pure bias, there might be real reasons why women get paid less and men are considered bad fathers (personally, i don't agree with both statements, but see the wsj article). I suggest, if we want to get rid of this bias, change the underlying situation that perpetuates it (e.g. not by introducing gender quotas, but by making childraising less time-consuming, or educating men to be better fathers and getting rid of ridiculous stereotypes that are perpetuated in mass culture).
- shardling 14y ago
  You have (I hope unwittingly?) just fulfilled one of the specific tropes she does mention.
  - return0 14y ago
    ... And which she outright dismisses citing an irrelevant study. (I did mention it's a poor article, didn't i?) When we talk about real-life statistical evidence, that’s not conclusive, either, because all differences are explained by women having babies, other priorities, etc (Except they’re not, as the linked document explains very clearly.) The linked document is a report with some recommendations about how to measure pay gap Btw, can someone explain the usage of the word "trope" here?
    - shardling 14y ago
      A trope is a recurring theme. In this context, it refers to highly predictable responses to particular arguments. I don't think the post was super well written, but I also don't see how the cited study was irrelevant -- it shows the existence of a gender bias that operates completely independently of the choices of any individual woman: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/...
smsm42 14y ago
Until this concern is taken seriously, I don't see why it should not be repeated. So far I only see it reflexively dismissed as "oh this, yet again". While the silent assumption is that only certain people and certain biases are discussed and "we are all biased" actually means only certain set of data is taken into account, and other data is dismissed as irrelevant. It's not about focus, it's about basic inclusion. Data about gender/discipline compositions in academic disciplines: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/college-class-of-2011-by-academic-discipline-and-gender-the-selective-concern-about-gender-imbalances-is-imbalanced/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/college-class-of-2011-by-ac... I remember hearing a lot about sexism in disciplines which are 80+% male in this list. But I pretty much never hear about sexism in disciplines that are 80+% female. Now, I don't make any claims here about existence or non-existence of sexism one way or another just basing on the percentage data. Maybe there is sexism in one place, maybe there is not in another, even though percentages looks the same. That's not my point here. What I am questioning is that seeing 80% on one side is universally taken alone as supporting the claim of sexism, if not proving it completely, but the same study showing the same bias to the other side is not considered the base to the same claim. I think this is related to the content of the article.

return0 14y ago

No, my main point was that it's not pure bias, there might be real reasons why women get paid less and men are considered bad fathers (personally, i don't agree with both statements, but see the wsj article). I suggest, if we want to get rid of this bias, change the underlying situation that perpetuates it (e.g. not by introducing gender quotas, but by making childraising less time-consuming, or educating men to be better fathers and getting rid of ridiculous stereotypes that are perpetuated in mass culture).

shardling 14y ago
You have (I hope unwittingly?) just fulfilled one of the specific tropes she does mention.
- return0 14y ago
  ... And which she outright dismisses citing an irrelevant study. (I did mention it's a poor article, didn't i?) When we talk about real-life statistical evidence, that’s not conclusive, either, because all differences are explained by women having babies, other priorities, etc (Except they’re not, as the linked document explains very clearly.) The linked document is a report with some recommendations about how to measure pay gap Btw, can someone explain the usage of the word "trope" here?
  - shardling 14y ago
    A trope is a recurring theme. In this context, it refers to highly predictable responses to particular arguments. I don't think the post was super well written, but I also don't see how the cited study was irrelevant -- it shows the existence of a gender bias that operates completely independently of the choices of any individual woman: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/...

smsm42 14y ago

Until this concern is taken seriously, I don't see why it should not be repeated. So far I only see it reflexively dismissed as "oh this, yet again". While the silent assumption is that only certain people and certain biases are discussed and "we are all biased" actually means only certain set of data is taken into account, and other data is dismissed as irrelevant. It's not about focus, it's about basic inclusion. Data about gender/discipline compositions in academic disciplines: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/college-class-of-2011-by-academic-discipline-and-gender-the-selective-concern-about-gender-imbalances-is-imbalanced/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/college-class-of-2011-by-ac... I remember hearing a lot about sexism in disciplines which are 80+% male in this list. But I pretty much never hear about sexism in disciplines that are 80+% female. Now, I don't make any claims here about existence or non-existence of sexism one way or another just basing on the percentage data. Maybe there is sexism in one place, maybe there is not in another, even though percentages looks the same. That's not my point here. What I am questioning is that seeing 80% on one side is universally taken alone as supporting the claim of sexism, if not proving it completely, but the same study showing the same bias to the other side is not considered the base to the same claim. I think this is related to the content of the article.