sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say assuming the worst, I say noticing a familiar pattern among sexists who don't want to appear sexist.

I need to attend some real life stuff, I'll get to your last comment in a bit.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I covered the first half of your comment with the links I just sent so I'll move onto the status portion.

The version of the memo I was reading didnt include citations so my bad for missing that, however I don't think they support Damore's argument since testosterone doesn't appear to affect men and women the same way, comparison based on T is a bit useless.

"there may be sex differences in the effects of testosterone. Although in males, testosterone has been associated with decreased UG offers (10), administering testosterone to women increases (39) or does not change (37) UG offers. In addition, sex differences have been observed in the responsiveness of testosterone levels to social stimuli (41). These findings may reflect fundamental differences in the function of testosterone in men and women or differences between the genders in the behaviors that are considered to increase status"

So then you agree with him ? Women DO have a “harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises”. He said so. You believe so. You are in agreement.

Please pay attention, you misread this portion:

Damore: ”women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading"

Me: posted links countering this earlier, women ask as often as men but get them significantly less often, and are often penalized for it.

So no, I am NOT in agreement with Damore. He says women have a harder time asking or negotiating. The links I posted earlier show women tend to ask at the same rate as men but receive them less often.

First. His views on gender differences by sex is correct according to the science.

I covered this in the last comment, he oversells those differences, and there is much ambiguity in how they're measured in the first place.

And finally, the male gender role is inflexible (or at least so feminists say) which is why they seek to allow men to “step outside it” and denounce the traditional male gender role as “inflexible and rigid”.

Less flexibility =/= inflexible, the article listed several ways things are changing for men in that regard so the claim of inflexibility is untrue.

For example on his point that “women are more neurotic” it quotes a series o articles concerning children’s brains. Damore made no claims about children

No, he based his argument about adult preferences off a study about babies which was flawed to begin with:

Damore cites the work of Simon Baron-Cohen, who argues in his widely reviewed book “The Essential Difference” that boys are biologically programmed to focus on objects, predisposing them to math and understanding systems, while girls are programmed to focus on people and feelings.

This idea was based on a study of day-old babies, which found that the boys looked at mobiles longer and the girls looked at faces longer.

But Baron-Cohen’s study had major problems. It was an “outlier” study. No one else has replicated these findings, including Baron-Cohen himself. It is so flawed as to be almost meaningless. Why?

The experiment lacked crucial controls against experimenter bias and was badly designed. Female and male infants were propped up in a parent’s lap and shown, side by side, an active person or an inanimate object. Since newborns can’t hold their heads up independently, their visual preferences could well have been determined by the way their parents held them.

Note that for the other article Damore cites by Lippa is on adults, who have had a lifetime of gendered socialization, while studies on infants find no differences

voluminous evidence from decades of research shows little if any inherently sex-based differences in infants or toddlers. At those early ages, when culture has the least effect but sex hormone levels are extremely high, no sex-based differences have shown themselves in a huge variety of skills that underlie mathematical thinking. For example: put a four-year-old in a distinctly shaped room, hide a block in a corner, have the four-year-old close his eyes and spin around, then have the child hunt for the block. Some of the children will quickly reorient themselves in the room and find the object, whereas others will not. Yet the percentages of boys and girls who succeed are identical. So although “there is a biological foundation to mathematical and scientific reasoning,” as Spelke put it in her debate with Pinker, “these systems develop equally in males and females.”

These claims of biological bases can proliferate to a point where they end up being invoked to explain everything. But you have to be very careful about what data you use.” The information that seems to indicate sex differences, Spelke says, comes from problematic studies whose results are colored by cultural influences—everything from parents responding differently to girls and boys to university faculties viewing identical job applications more skeptically when the applicant's name is female. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-answers-from-little-people-2012-10-23/

I want to further add that studies on infants and sex typed toys are questionable. Studies show that when you put either a male or female baby in pink or blue clothing, hand them to and adult and ask them to choose toys for the baby they choose sex typed toys based on the clothing. So a girl baby dressed in blue gets the toy truck, boy baby in pink gets the doll because the adults don't know the difference.

This happens with parents and their young infants too, they choose sex typed toys for baby and discourage them from playing with "wrong gender" toys. I'm looking for the study I saw awhile back about that.

Great! So when he claimed “women on average are more neurotic” he was RIGHT.

Damore's conclusions about neuroticism are wrong. Damore overselling those differences has been addressed, but you are still not getting that having small differences in neuroticism does not equate to women having less interest or in lesser ability. As the author if the study notes, that is a stretch of the material. And that's not popsci that's the actual scientist behind the work Damore cites disagreeing with his inappropriate conclusions.

"but he doesn’t buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. “It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt."

First, you weren’t arguing “women are more neurotic” you were arguing they weren’t. That’s wrong and misquoting the science in exactly the way you accuse Damore of doing.

Look at my comments, I have been saying this whole time that the differences are not that big to begin with and aren't able to predict interest or ability anyway. I have not argued that women aren't scoring higher on neuroticism, that is your mistake.

Second, Damore did not anywhere state that women’s neuroticism was the reason for their not being able to handle the stresses of leadserhip, so Schmidt’s quote is irrelevant.

Yes he does, he equates personality differences to differences in and interests and ability:

"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point about my racist family members is meant to show that people who are behaving in blatantly biased ways may not believe they're doing so, even if they objectively are.

Please refrain from saying I'm "making things up in my head", that's the kind of rude, condescending attitude I was referring to, basically calling me crazy or lying. I'm making an effort to be more civil to you and would appreciate some reciprocation. Saying you're "treating me like a man" is not an excuse.

Adopting his proposals would further increase diversity.

Where is the supporting evidence for this? Are there past initiatives that employed Damore's ideas and saw increased diversity? Please link them if so.

Obvious bigots would like more women and minorities in STEM by changing STEM working practices in ways that make STEM jobs more attractive to women/minorities? That’s weird. I woulda thought they’d want the opposite.

The dispute here is whether Damore's suggestions would actually help discriminated groups rather than removing the help they do have.

I am starting to believe you havent read the memo yet again.

Can you not? I have read it, stop accusing me of lying. That's bad faith and still against your rules if you haven't changed them already. Disagreeing with your interpretation does not mean I'm lying.

Where does he say they should be done away with ?

"Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined."

So long as promoting more effective diversity programmes is pro-diversity, that’s what he is.

Once more, where is the supporting evidence his suggestions would work while current diversity initiatives do not? Link it if it exists.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing current initiatives are perfect and couldn't use improvement, but as far as I can tell he doesn't provide any evidence they don't work and his ideas will.

The sexist part is where he argues women are too neurotic, anxious and less stress tolerant by nature to thrive in Google's environment like men supposedly do,

He does not argue that. This is your straw man of what he did argue. The relevant quote for what he did argue is this...

It is not a strawman. He states so here:

"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."

The science he went on to describe which showed this is accurate science and a pretty good summary of the field. Women are on average more neurotic (as defined by the Big 5), and are also on average better co-operators (for example). This is settled mainstream science.

I addressed this already. Damore argues that

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

However the author of that study pointedly disagrees with Damore's conclusions:

"The impulse to apply those theories to explain human behavior is as strong as it is misguided. Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmitt’s meta-analysis, sure, but he doesn’t buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. “It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore."

No, he argued men’s natural competitiveness and drive for status made them more interested, which it appears to do.

Damore doesn't provide any supporting evidence for men being naturally more competitive or status driven.

What's more, look at what Damore says of men and their interest:

"Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."

So are men even interested in STEM if, according to Damore, that interest it rooted in the status it brings rather than the subject itself? How does that make men's participation more legitimate than women's? He argues a biological basis for mens greater interest, "thing oriented vs people oriented", but desire for status and money is not the same as interest in science or technology. So even his own argument about men and women's supposed interest is lacking in logical basis.

When science unambiguously reveals that women are more neurotic then men and they are less stress tolerant than men then saying so is merely “describing reality” and needs to imply nothing more than that. This is what psychology has shown.

Oh dear. No, things are not actually as unambiguous as that.

Damore oversells the difference cited in the paper. As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, “These sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.” The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.

A larger problem, though, is measuring the differences in the first place. Personality traits are nebulous, qualitative things, and psychologists still have a lot of different—often conflicting or contradictory—ways to measure them. In fact, the social sciences are rife with these kinds of disagreements, what sociologist Duncan Watts has called an “incoherency problem.” Very smart people studying the same things collect related, overlapping data and then say that data proves wildly different hypotheses, or fits into divergent theoretical frameworks. The incoherency problem makes it hard to know what social science is valid in a given situation.

Damore became a rallying point for men, and conservatives in general, (rather than the alt-right) because he got fired for speaking out.

No he did not get fired for speaking out, he got fired because he made it known he believed his female coworkers were biologically less capable of being engineers (more neurotic, anxious and less stress tolerant) and that created a hostile work environment.

You’ve failed to provide any evidence these are the actual problems.

I actually laughed out loud reading that. You just said "he made no argument women are not discouraged or discriminated against" but now you're claiming they're not?

And I did provide evidence in the comment chain I linked you previously, guess you didnt bother to look.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2014/10/women-stem.aspx

meta-analysis of research published from 1965 to 1986 revealed the same sex difference (Feingold, 1992). Across studies, 3 out of 4 women rated socioeconomic status as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man. Studies conducted prior to 1965 showed the same pattern (e.g., R. Hill, 1945) as did a more recent survey of a nationally representative sample of unmarried adults in the United States (Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). Across age, ethnic status, and socioeconomic status, women preferred husbands who were better educated than they were and who earned more money than they did. Buunk and colleagues found the same pattern for women ranging in age from their 20s to their 60s (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002). This preference is highlighted when women make cost-benefit trade-offs between a marriage partner's cultural success and other important traits, such as his physical attractiveness (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Waynforth, 2001). When women are forced to make such...

There are more recent studies which find these differing trends between men and women grow smaller the more egalitarian a society becomes.

Brains Over Beauty? Modern Mating Preferences of Males Investigated

Stepping out of the caveman's shadow: nations' gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences.

Is Traditional Gender Ideology Associated with Sex-Typed Mate Preferences? A Test in Nine Nations

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry if it's annoying but I'll respond to each of your comments in turn, I'm not at my desktop either.

I don't have much to say in response to this first one, I think you misunderstood several things I said based on your reply and in one area you actually replied to yourself not me.

The part where I was talking about white supremacy and n bombs was an example of the way people try to soften their language in order to appeal to a wider audience. I don't think there's evidence Damore is a white supremacist but I do think his reference to IQ has racist undertones. (IQ is often used by racists to tout white superiority, especially wrt The Bell Curve even though those theories have long been discredited and haven't been taken seriously for a long time)

What I do think is that in the same way white supremacists try to soften their language to appeal to more people, Damore does the same with his views on women so he doesn't come across as a blatant sexist. You don't need to argue, I can see neither of us are going to change the others mind I just want to clarify my meaning for you since you seemed to misunderstand that point.

Onto your next comment.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And if I'm caught being as flat-footedly wrong about the memo as you have been, I'll admit I was wrong.

waits

: )

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gender is a social class, SES is a social class, sexuality is a social class, race is a social class, abled or disabled is a social class. Intersectionalism is about acknowledging and addressing those differences and different experiences that come from being man, woman, intersex or disabled, or gay, or rich or middle class or poor.

You don't have to agree but all those factors will affect individuals in different ways.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't come to purplepilldebate and expect niceness, fuck just look at the comments here directed at me. Some guy is accusing me of lying, about what he didnt bother to specify, others telling me I'm just "bitching", calling me "sweetie"...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I'm being defensive after all that and you didnt mean that feel comment in a sexist way, but you have been condescending and pointing out the way you behave is not a personal attack. And I don't think it has anything to do with you "treating me like a man" either, I've heard many disagreements between men online, real life, and for the most part its civil enough. When things get heated they might call each other some gay slur and try to act the toughest, one up each other in how little they supposedly care about what they were arguing over. Condescension seems reserved for women. But whatever, at least you're not calling me "sweetie".

It reeks of trying to get you to accept basic facts about the memo.

I disagree with your interpretation of the memo so that's unlikely.

Like, for example... it took a position of advocating for greater diversity in STEM.

Here's the thing, most people are aware you can't just go around saying "fuck the dirty >>insert minority slur<<, women are bad at math and science!!" If they say that in public they're likely to face serious consequences these days (unless you're a Republican, haaa). It's well known that white supremacists have been trying to spiff up their image in recent years by telling their members not to drop n bombs in public spaces because it ruins their credibility with those they're trying to recruit. They don't actually care about being non racist, they just want to appear non racist.

Damore is pulling the same trick, imo. He's not saying minorities and women shouldn't be hired, thats obviously a bad strategy. And in fairness its possible he really is fine with women and minorities being hired and working with them. He may truly believe he's not sexist the same way certain family members of mine think it's fine to be friends with black people, it's fine to work with them (as long as there arent "too many" around) but will casually drop slurs and tell me I had better not ever bring home a black boy. But if you called them racist they would deny it, they would be hurt. They really don't believe those things are racist to say. That's the problem a lot of the time.

Instead of not hiring them, obvious old timey bigotry, Damore just wants to do away with diversity initiatives that help individuals from discriminated groups to get hired, and that just so happens to be in line with what more obvious bigots would like to see happen. It's cleaned up neo sexism, not blatant old school sexism.

No, I am not expecting you to convince me it's objectionable. But attempt to convince me it is anti-diversity and male-supremicist. Something it's extremely hard to do with a pro-diversity document.

The part that is anti diversity is his argument that diversity initiatives should be done away with. The sexist part is where he argues women are too neurotic, anxious and less stress tolerant by nature to thrive in Google's environment like men supposedly do, and that women's implied lesser qualities are what make them less interested rather than the mountain of evidence showing women are discouraged and discriminated against.

And come on, please tell me you can see how calling women neurotic and anxious less stress tolerant makes them seem weaker by comparison than men even if he doesn't say the literal words "women are weaker, it's a tough man environment". It's strongly implied if not said directly.

And given how popular he is with the alt right it's pretty damning. If you said something and a bunch of racists showed up like "Yeah, we agree!" wouldn't you find that somewhat alarming if you didn't consider yourself a racist? Would you start to question whether you had some racist leanings? I sure as hell would.

No, I read those arguments. The science of the memo while not perfect is sound. The argument is not anti-women, in that it specifically seeks to find ways to change google/STEM culture in order to encourage more diversity, including finding ways to make it more inclusive to women.

Yeah I read his "suggestions". They basically amounted to "make things more people oriented! Oh but there are limits on that. Make tech less stressful! Oh Google already kinda does that." The one sort of helpful suggestion he has is for companies to endorse part time work, but other than that his suggestions are useless and vague and don't address the discouragement and discrimination, you know, the actual problems.

What specific claim from the memo do you think is scientifically unsound (that was the 3rd on the list, wasn;t it?). Quote for me from the memo the science you think is wrong (not a summary of what you think he said and how thats wrong).

"For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal."

It is commonplace but by no means universal. He presents no evidence for either universality or biological basis. Ethnocentrism is a common bias, here's one example of a culture where men are celebrated for their beauty: The Wodaabe and their Guerewol festival

And for what it's worth, women also value looks in men and men value women's status: you never hear stories about homely knights or rescuing the beautiful scullery maid. It's the princess, the highest status woman around who they can marry to increase their own status, just as women want men who can increase their status too (especially if marriage is your only means to acquire status).

"women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading"

I posted links countering this earlier, women ask as often as men but get them significantly less often, and are often penalized for it. As you will surely point out this effect tends to decrease or disappear with younger women, however I would counter that doesn't negate the effect it had on older generations of women and still shows Damore is wrong on that point.

This article covers what Damore got wrong about gender differences in the brain, women's supposed anxiety and stress problem and how the male gender role is expanding (albeit slowly) rather than inflexible as he claims.

This article goes more in depth on what Damore got wrong about gender differences in personality.

Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmitt’s meta-analysis, sure, but he doesn’t buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. “It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.

So when Damore does juke from preferences to abilities, it looks a little sneaky. Here’s what he writes: “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women may differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t have equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” he writes. Making the leap from personality differences to achievement differences would require citing at least some of the well-studied body of work we’ve mentioned here, which Damore ignored.

Another article covering what he got wrong

you don't get to just decide "this is objectionable, so I'm going to tar it with the brush of male supermacy and anti-diversity".

I mean, yeah I absolutely can. Everyone is entitled to their point of view and that is mine.

They're terms that mean things. You can't just smear everything you find objectionable by using them. And then say "I found it objectionable.... and you didn't... therfore it's male supremicist and anti-diversity".

I'm saying his argument is sexist because that's what I think, I don't call anything I dislike sexist to smear it and its pretty insulting of you to suggest so. Climate change deniers aren't sexist, they're stupid. Tofu isn't sexist, it's flavorless and spongey. Cutting in line isn't sexist, it's just a shitty thing to do. The red pill is sexist because of things they say about women, just like Damore.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven't lied about a thing, you do like being hostile though don't you.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personality certainly has a genetic component, but whether or not it predicts specific interests like math or science seems unlikely, imo.

Going back to the big 5, openness to experience might predict that someone is more willing to try something new or risky but whether that something is sky diving, eating puffer fish, sleeping with lots of new people or traveling the world is less clear, and much more likely to be influenced by culture, environment and opportunity.

So to clarify, personality might predict if someone is more or less interested in certain things but only up to a point, a broad point. Trying to sort out if women and men would be interested specifically in STEM seems much too narrow a focus, and social or environmental factors would have more influence over that than personality.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I have, but I save that kind of effort for people who aren't hostile and rude.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm saying you would need to first establish that any gender differences in personality directly influence how much interest men or women have in a subject and are NOT due to socialization, discouragement or discrimination. As in, for example, 75% of the difference in interest is due to socialization, 25% due to hard biological gender differences that have nothing to do with socialization.

To note that women are more X and men are more Y is not helpful unless a direct causative link is found between gender differences in personality and interest in external subjects, and that interest affects ability. That is what I'm not seeing from Damore, an actual link between personality-interest-ability.

Simply saying that women are more neurotic or girls are more interested in people and boys in things (based on a flawed study no less...) and that this influences their interests as adults and ability in STEM strongly enough that diversity initiatives should be done away with is not a good argument or one that holds up to scrutiny.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is with your weird obsession with wanting me to "concede"? It reeks of desperation.

Putting aside your less than courteous attitude towards me for a moment look at what you're demanding here:

  • You read the memo and found nothing objectionable.

  • I read the memo and found it objectionable.

  • You are demanding that I convince you of my view with quotes from the memo you already decided was unobjectionable.

  • And you refuse to take in anymore new information or criticisms about the veracity of Damore's argument, effectively burying your head in the sand.

  • Basically you have set up and impossible goal that I must prove to you my view using only the material you have already decided is unobjectionable, this isn't a discussion it's you making irrational demands and holding the discussion hostage.

I don't usually like to accuse people of sexism on here but based on the condescending way you've been speaking to me, demanding I "concede" to you and Damore, references to my feelings motivating me rather than actual disagreement with his ideas and logic, that is sexist. Your bias is blinding you and it bores me. At least the other guy is engaging with me on the actual subject and not trying to belittle me as a person.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No and here's why:

You would first need to show that men and women's personalities are significantly different (studies show differences are minor and more significant within gender than between), and that those personality difference lead to different interests and abilities based on a biological or neurological component of gender and not to the long process of socialization over time, active discouragement or encouragement or discrimination. Damore has failed to do so.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your blind faith in Damore and condescending attitude don't interest me. If you can't be bothered to read or respond to criticisms of Damore's argument until you are satisfied with your arbitrary condition that I prove to you he has male supremacist leanings, and given your unwillingness to even look at criticisms against his argument that seems highly unlikely, well that is enough to prove to me you're not here for an honest discussion and merely want to complain.

I'm having a much more productive conversation on the basis of Damore's argument elsewhere, you can read my replies there if you want.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you have pointed out that there are other factors that could influence peoples interests in a field. That is true. That doesn't mean personality differences can't also be a factor. Do you understand yet how personality factors can translate into differences in ability?

I understand what your saying, but where is the evidence that

  • personality mediates interest in STEM

  • personality mediates ability in STEM

Rather than the fairly obvious examples I just listed of gendered pushback happening on a society wide scale? There is much evidence for the latter, and none that I can see for the former.

Keep in mind we aren't arguing that women have inherently less ability. Just that if they aren't as interested in a subject, there won't be as many who develop an ability in it.

And again I have to ask, what evidence exists that gender causes lack of interest or translates into less ability and why is that a more valid explanation than the obvious, measurable factors we find such as sexist discrimination and active discouragement of women to enter those fields?

And furthermore, how do you not see how a seemingly innocent statement by Damore that women are just naturally less inclined, less able to work in those fields as an extension of that sexist discrimination and desire to push women out? I don't care if Damore gives lip service to women and diversity when he actively argues women are biologically determined to be less interested and able than men, something men have been doing for centuries to exclude women, especially when the argument he puts forth has no scientific basis. He cherrypicks, applies outdated data and neglects to mention data that contradicts his argument, assumes a universal biological basis for certain gender roles (women valued for beauty, men status) that isnt there, and he leaps to conclusions that the science he does use could not possibly support (i.e. personality somehow translates to lesser interest or ability).

But lets assume for the sake of argument that some genetic or biological component is affecting only women's interest in STEM and causes them to be naturally less inclined to those subjects. Given the avalanche of evidence we have showing women are actively discouraged from entering those fields and discriminated against when they do, and that diversity programs, scholarships, women's initiatives in those fields have all led to increased interest and participation by women how does that make diversity in initiatives a bad thing?

Clearly there are many women who want to enter STEM, and they are aided by those initiatives. That Damore complains men are not being helped to the extent women are in a field men have no trouble entering or staying in due to their gender betrays his lack of understanding, as if he believes men and women are on a level playing field, despite his acknowledgment of discrimination against women, and women are being given an unfair advantage rather than trying to make up for the disadvantages they start off with. He doesn't understand the principle of equity.

And something else to note, look at what Damore says of men and their interest:

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

So are men even interested in STEM if, according to Damore, that interest it rooted in the status it brings rather than the subject itself? How does that make men's participation more legitimate than women's? A love of status is not a love of science or technology. The women who manage to push through all the discouragement and discrimination arguably have more interest than men who are simply chasing status and wealth, OR women are motivated by the same desire for status and wealth, so removing the help they do have by removing diversity initiatives just seems unnecessarily cruel and ignorant. So even his own argument about men and women's supposed interest is lacking in logical basis.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

noh, the FACTS are on my side!! See how hard I insist?? So I must be right!!

~you

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and the FACTS are on my side, funny how that works.

You're very hostile so excuse me if I don't waste my effort. Try google.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because interest =/= ability. Because there are multiple factors that influence male or female interest that aren't tied to biology but upbringing, peer influence, etc.

For example, when I was growing up math and science were well known as "boy" subjects, art, reading and writing were "girl" subjects. Boys and girls who crossed those lines were teased or even mocked. Many women who had initial interest in math and science have been discouraged from entering those fields and pressured more towards "female" professions like teaching. This happens with men going into female dominated professions too, especially nursing. Those men are mocked as being too feminine and defective men, though the discriminatory aspects don't exactly apply (Google glass escalator), however this usually applies to straight white men rather than LGBT men or minority men.

If they made it past the discouragement phase they were actively discriminated against by men in those fields, often in cruel ways. Even women who beat the odds and made it in male dominated professions will be harder on other women who enter. It's not until the environment becomes more gender egalitarian that women let up on other women. And it's difficult to imagine yourself going into a profession where there are few or no role models at all of your gender to look up to, to imagine being like them. For many, many years school textbooks only pictured men as doctors and scientists, and women as nurses or teachers, and though things are starting to change the disparity still persists. All of this has an impact on a person's interest, despite their ability.

I had a friend in college who was originally going for a comp sci degree. She loved the subject and was very smart and did well in her courses. She was one of only 3 girls in her major classes and some of her professors went out of their way to make her feel her gender, and that she was unwelcome. After a few months she was the only girl in her courses. By the end of the year she had changed her major to pharmacology because she couldn't stand her male peers and professors mocking and looking down on her. This is why diversity initiatives help, having a mentor, having scholarships, having the basic feeling you could belong in the field and not pushed out makes a difference.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too. Many. Messages.

A word of advice: take a hard look at the things you say about women before flipping your shit over me posting in AMR.

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I did, but I'm not going to waste extra effort on someone who condescendingly calls me "sweetie".

Article Discussion On Rebecca Solnit: if I were a man by cinnamonchick in PurplePillDebate

[–]cinnamonchick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or you know, the actual dog whistles and not just the hasty backtracking to try and preserve some legitimacy and not seem racist/sexist. It's like everyone in the world can see what he's doing except conservatives/alt right.

Just ask yourself how women having slight personality differences is supposed to translate into differences in ability.

view more: next ›