4 ms·

>Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. This is a good illu

>Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. This is a good illustration of the point in the grandparent comment. This is simply not true, and I can't even think of any fallacy/ belief/ blindspot that could be adopted by a somewhat rational listener to make it sound convincing. (just to address the recalcitrant credulous among you: consider whether there is discrimination against Down Syndrome sufferers amongst tenured faculty on math departments) In topics where people have deep vested personal interest or emotional investment, the quality of arguments that they would view as convincing goes down (often way down). The tragedy here is that the discourse about complicated topics which are important is overrun by people who have either (or, most often both) vested interests in a particular outcome, or little knowledge about the topic. Saying "period period" at the end, I think, indicates that on some level, the parent commenter knows that s/he is presenting a weak argument. The poster's emotion overpowers this, however. QED

pron 13y ago
People with Down Syndrome suffer from a debilitating disability that directly affects their ability to perform the essential functions required from math professors. Unless you suggest that being a woman or a black man is a similar disability, I think the comparison is inappropriate. The reason I put "period" is because many people aren't aware of the current body of research in gender studies and sociology, and modern definitions of sexism (a simple introduction can be found here[1], esp. unintentional sexism: "The tendency to use intent, rather than result, to measure whether something was offensive and inappropriate, and therefore sexist, is tied into male privilege and the way that it enables sexist practices to be seen as normal."). If women are largely absent from a group wielding any social power, then by definition sexism exists (or sex-based discrimination, if you prefer), unless you can prove that being a woman is a relevant debilitating disability, which I don't even think anyone conjectures. Because the data suggests[2] that diversity in Silicon Valley is severely lacking, this is a serious problem in Silicon Valley. (Any rationalization such as "but what if women don't want to be in tech" is irrelevant. The assumption is that all groups want to take part in powerful institutions, and if they don't, it must be because somewhere along the line society encouraged them not to want that, thus effectively removing them from power.) [1]: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de... [2]: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon-valley/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon...
- pervycreeper 13y ago
  >I think the comparison is inappropriate Another case in point, it was a counterexample, not a comparison. In your case, I now believe you are primarily just a sloppy/ bad thinker (who is also heavily invested in a certain position), but my original point about emotion clouding judgement still stands.
  - pron 13y ago
    What is it with the ad-hominem attacks today? I am probably a sloppy thinker and possibly a very bad one, but luckily I've received some very good education, and in this particular case I didn't even need to think at all. I simply informed readers that by modern definitions of sexism, absence of women from places of influence equals sexism (at least somewhere in society if not at a particular workplace). I am certainly not invested in this... oh, wait, actually, you're right, I am – I'm a feminist (or, at least, I'd like to be) and I want to live and work in a more egalitarian society. If you take any issue with this thinking, I'm kindly pointing you to the last 50 years of research in history, sociology and anthropology and the relevant researchers. Take it up with them (but don't tell them they're emotional as they'll take offense because, you know, they're emotional). And, again, I'm sorry for my sloppy thinking, but I believe that "consider whether there is discrimination against Down Syndrome sufferers amongst tenured faculty on math departments" is not a counterexample because pertinent disability most certainly doesn't fall under any definition of sexism/racism and other unfair discrimination (same goes for quadriplegics in the NBA). Pitting disability against sexism as a counterexample appeared to me to be a brow-raising comparison. This fallacy is called reductio ad absurdum or a straw man. If you'd like, I can come up with a better counterpoint (or so it would seem to my feeble mind, which I actually had to exercise for this): white players in the NBA. However, that, too, would not fall under the modern definition for racism, as racism (like sexism) is "prejudice + power", and I don't think anyone suggests white men lack power or influence in American sports. And if I was sloppy by not qualifying the term "a well defined group of people" to exclude disability, forgive me, I thought it was patently clear from the context, namely a discussion on women. And please don't try to counter with discrimination against those who don't know programming or village idiots, because the definition excludes that kind of "discrimination", too, and I hope that's clear enough without me quoting vast amounts of research verbatim.
tw268 13y ago
There's a lot of research on emotional/cognitive sex differences[1] - from risk aversion to math ability. Leftists/feminists are the science-denying young earth creationists of the social realm. The only way to eliminate gender based inequality is to start injecting female fetuses with male hormones pre-birth. Personally, I never understood why feminists so desperately want girls to be boys. [1] ex. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-no...

pron 13y ago

People with Down Syndrome suffer from a debilitating disability that directly affects their ability to perform the essential functions required from math professors. Unless you suggest that being a woman or a black man is a similar disability, I think the comparison is inappropriate. The reason I put "period" is because many people aren't aware of the current body of research in gender studies and sociology, and modern definitions of sexism (a simple introduction can be found here[1], esp. unintentional sexism: "The tendency to use intent, rather than result, to measure whether something was offensive and inappropriate, and therefore sexist, is tied into male privilege and the way that it enables sexist practices to be seen as normal."). If women are largely absent from a group wielding any social power, then by definition sexism exists (or sex-based discrimination, if you prefer), unless you can prove that being a woman is a relevant debilitating disability, which I don't even think anyone conjectures. Because the data suggests[2] that diversity in Silicon Valley is severely lacking, this is a serious problem in Silicon Valley. (Any rationalization such as "but what if women don't want to be in tech" is irrelevant. The assumption is that all groups want to take part in powerful institutions, and if they don't, it must be because somewhere along the line society encouraged them not to want that, thus effectively removing them from power.) [1]: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de... [2]: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon-valley/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon...

pervycreeper 13y ago
>I think the comparison is inappropriate Another case in point, it was a counterexample, not a comparison. In your case, I now believe you are primarily just a sloppy/ bad thinker (who is also heavily invested in a certain position), but my original point about emotion clouding judgement still stands.
- pron 13y ago
  What is it with the ad-hominem attacks today? I am probably a sloppy thinker and possibly a very bad one, but luckily I've received some very good education, and in this particular case I didn't even need to think at all. I simply informed readers that by modern definitions of sexism, absence of women from places of influence equals sexism (at least somewhere in society if not at a particular workplace). I am certainly not invested in this... oh, wait, actually, you're right, I am – I'm a feminist (or, at least, I'd like to be) and I want to live and work in a more egalitarian society. If you take any issue with this thinking, I'm kindly pointing you to the last 50 years of research in history, sociology and anthropology and the relevant researchers. Take it up with them (but don't tell them they're emotional as they'll take offense because, you know, they're emotional). And, again, I'm sorry for my sloppy thinking, but I believe that "consider whether there is discrimination against Down Syndrome sufferers amongst tenured faculty on math departments" is not a counterexample because pertinent disability most certainly doesn't fall under any definition of sexism/racism and other unfair discrimination (same goes for quadriplegics in the NBA). Pitting disability against sexism as a counterexample appeared to me to be a brow-raising comparison. This fallacy is called reductio ad absurdum or a straw man. If you'd like, I can come up with a better counterpoint (or so it would seem to my feeble mind, which I actually had to exercise for this): white players in the NBA. However, that, too, would not fall under the modern definition for racism, as racism (like sexism) is "prejudice + power", and I don't think anyone suggests white men lack power or influence in American sports. And if I was sloppy by not qualifying the term "a well defined group of people" to exclude disability, forgive me, I thought it was patently clear from the context, namely a discussion on women. And please don't try to counter with discrimination against those who don't know programming or village idiots, because the definition excludes that kind of "discrimination", too, and I hope that's clear enough without me quoting vast amounts of research verbatim.

tw268 13y ago

There's a lot of research on emotional/cognitive sex differences[1] - from risk aversion to math ability. Leftists/feminists are the science-denying young earth creationists of the social realm. The only way to eliminate gender based inequality is to start injecting female fetuses with male hormones pre-birth. Personally, I never understood why feminists so desperately want girls to be boys. [1] ex. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-no...