I expect that many people at work are expected to engage with a "diversity" agenda that is based on the assumption that if the proportion of women is anything less than 50 per cent then that must be because they are being discriminated against and unfairly treated.
I've never been convinced by this. It may be that, on average, women and men tend to want different things. That would mean that, in the best, most egalitarian and free-choice societies, with everyone pursuing their desired career path, that ratios would often be very different from 50:50.
I thought this was a good essay: https://quillette.com/2018/06/19/why-women-dont-code/
"Our community must face the difficult truth that we aren’t likely to make further progress in attracting women to computer science. Women *can* code, but often they don’t *want* to. We will never reach gender parity. You can shame and fire all of the Damores you find, but that won’t change the underlying reality.
"It’s time for everyone to be honest, and my honest view is that having 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve. Accepting that idea doesn’t mean that women should feel unwelcome. Recognizing that women will be in the minority makes me even more appreciative of the women who choose to join us."
Well that's his career down the pan......
He makes some good points but I struggle to accept his conclusion that an 80:20 balance in CS is inevitable. Men and women aren't *that* different. It would also imply that biological sciences are an area men don't wont to do and so on. Given that certainly in some engineering subjects the male/female balance varies wildly between countries, and has changed hugely over time in say medicine and architecture, I'd say social factors are by far the most dominant.
I am so fundamentally bored of men with an agenda telling me that there is an agenda.
Also, enough of the male "academics" lining up to tell us what women want, and using pop psychology, pseudo biology and social science to justify it when they are not psychologists, biologists or social scientists.
UKC-The endless slew of these posts are why this forum is a hostile environment for women. I'd like to be be member of a forum that talks about climbing, the outdoors and the things I love. Yes I can choose not to read them. And from here on in I choose not to read them. Deleting my account. I've been a member for 15 years. I'm done.
Edit. Seems UKC don't allow account deletion. I won't be back.
I think your initial assumption may be wrong. The argument is somewhat more more nuanced.
I think there are two important questions:
1. Is an industry missing out because of a dominance of one gender? The answer will usually be yes.
2. Are there specific barriers to entry?
As MG points out, some of the “universal truths” about one gender not being interested in certain careers appear less universal and less true when you widen your search.
Totally agree.
Don't worry your pretty little head about it.
> 2. Are there specific barriers to entry?
I'd suggest that nowadays the answer is "no" for most of the areas that get discussed.
The problem is it’s a chicken and egg situation.
By the time children are 5 they have been imprinted with societies ‘norms’. Everything about our society reinforces norms and anyone who steps outside those norms is considered different. Which psychologically is very hard for a lot of people to deal with.
I work in engineering. The blokes swear a lot, drink a lot, watch football and are fairly derogatory towards women. I don’t even want to work alongside people like that, why would a woman ‘want’ to? For a start we don’t bring our daughters up to behave like that but in a lot of cases that kind of behaviour is actively encouraged in our sons.
Until it’s challenged and people actively try to change it from the top at his level, he’s right, it won’t change.
He’s basically missing the point entirely.
> It would also imply that biological sciences are an area men don't wont to do and so on.
But it's not a matter of "men don't want to", it's a matter of "a smaller fraction of men want to" compared to women. Which may well be true. We can't just assume that the fractions are always the same.
> Given that certainly in some engineering subjects the male/female balance varies wildly between countries, and has changed hugely over time in say medicine and architecture, I'd say social factors are by far the most dominant.
True, over time and over a range of countries, because there indeed *have* been lots of times and places where there was direct and unfair discrimination, and major social pressures.
But, it may be that we're arriving at (or may at some point arrive at) a situation where unfairness has been removed, and people can freely pursue what interests them. It's a valid question what the sex ratios would then likely be.
> I'd suggest that nowadays the answer is "no" for most of the areas that get discussed.
The strongest driver for choice of career is available role models. These might be parents, or relatives, or public figures (e.g. Brian Cox). If they aren't available in certain subjects for some groups, such as women, this will result in fewer choosing that option. So there is a strong element of self-reinforcement, which is a significant barrier.
Nice flounce.
Our "diversity agenda" is based on the assumption that social factors dominate. So we are involved in long-term STEM and WISE outreach projects in schools.
interesting response.
I don't think he missed the point in the way you describe. in fact i think he illustrated an issue with the quoted relative strengths of maths vs reading in boys vs girls.
Surely the question is really? - why? (are there such massive differences) I think it amounts to the same thing you are pointing at (aged 5 etc) but he doesn't follow that line of enquiry.
> *have* been lots of times and places where there was direct and unfair discrimination, and major social pressures.
The point is there still are major social pressures. It's not past tense. Interestingly the data shows that in the UK, engineering female students and graduates do just as well as males even though they are well out of proportion to the population. By contrast non-white students and graduates do less well than whites but are closer to the proportions in the population. Which suggests to me the social pressure dominate women's choices early, while there is prejudice affecting non-whites.
> What happened to you?
> jk
I'm bored with people pursuing their (often foolish) agendas and taking offence that anyone might disagree with them.
Coel's link was a perfectly reasonable view on why one might might not expect equality of outcome in particular areas of human activity. Other views are also available and are hardly lacking in proponents. Do you think that people holding different views to you are intrinsically hostile to you as a person or your identity? I suspect that you don't.
Women invented computer programming, pioneered computer programming and dominated computer programming until the 80s, when it became a more lucrative (and respected) career and when computers and technology began to be aggressively marketed as toys for boys. An entire generation has grown up being told computers are for boys. Now we've got men shrugging their shoulders and saying "women don't seem to WANT to work in this field". Funny that.
> Our "diversity agenda" is based on the assumption that social factors dominate. So we are involved in long-term STEM and WISE outreach projects in schools.
Yes! This is where attention needs to be focused.
> The strongest driver for choice of career is available role models.
How do we know that?
> If they aren't available in certain subjects for some groups, such as women, ...
But "aren't available" is over-stating. Let's say an area did have a "natural" sex ratio of one-third to two-thirds, and that the number of role models were in the same ratio. Is that ok, or do we need 50:50 role models?
I am a software developer. In my company, we have a couple of female developers, but predominantly it's male. We did have a few more, a couple left on maternity leave and never came back, a couple of others were lost in company reshuffles (along with a couple of guys).
The ratio is completely reversed on the QA side, which is predominantly female.
I have 2 daughters and I work at home a couple of days a week - they come in to see what I'm doing and are vaguely interested in what I'm doing, but are of an age where they get bored after a few minutes and want to watch Peter Rabbit on YouTube instead.
I do quite a bit of DIY stuff at home and have never excluded them from helping, where possible. I have some very cute pictures of my eldest adjusting the hinges on a new bathroom cabinet, rollering walls with Grandad and helping build her new bedroom furniture - my youngest recently helped change the chain and sprockets on the motorbike.
The point is that they're not just interested in dollies, although they have plenty of them - they have their own (plastic) tool kit to play with and have used real tools with me. Anybody's guess what they'll want to do when they grow up, but inclusion from a young age won't be a problem for them. Spent much of the journey to drop them off this morning explaining how roads are built - maybe she'll be a civil engineer?
> Which suggests to me the social pressure dominate women's choices early, while there is prejudice affecting non-whites.
I don't see how you can conclude that it is "social pressure" as opposed to free choices. And are you sure that non-whites do worse? I was under the impression that Asians generally do well.
> How do we know that?
E.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00195.x
> But "aren't available" is over-stating. Let's say an area did have a "natural" sex ratio of one-third to two-thirds, and that the number of role models were in the same ratio. Is that ok, or do we need 50:50 role models?
You are not going to get an understanding of human decisions of this type by approaching them as a physics study! I'd suggest doing some reading around the topic more broadly rather than latching on to one opinion piece that reinforces your prejudices. I don't claim to be an expert but I am aware of some of the research in this area. Blundering in with a reductive hard-science type will just make you look rather foolish.
> I work in engineering. The blokes swear a lot, drink a lot, watch football and are fairly derogatory towards women. I don’t even want to work alongside people like that, why would a woman ‘want’ to?
Is it ok to suggest that the fraction of men who like watching football is higher than the fraction of women who like watching football ...
... but not to suggest that the fraction of men who want a career in engineering just might be higher than the fraction of women who want the same?
If so, what's the difference?
> Women invented computer programming, pioneered computer programming and dominated computer programming until the 80s, when it became a more lucrative (and respected) career and when computers and technology began to be aggressively marketed as toys for boys. An entire generation has grown up being told computers are for boys. Now we've got men shrugging their shoulders and saying "women don't seem to WANT to work in this field". Funny that.
When I started out in professional programming in the early 80s around half of my colleagues were women. By the late 90s this was probably more like a quarter. By late noughties maybe about 10%. Last time I worked in a group (2015), there was one woman in a company of around 30 developers. It's a real shame and something major has been lost in group dynamics as a result.
> Is it ok to suggest that the fraction of men who like watching football is higher than the fraction of women who like watching football ...
Do you think it is because men are inherently, genetically more prone to enjoying football or because of the social environment?
> I'd suggest doing some reading around the topic more broadly rather than latching on to one opinion piece that reinforces your prejudices.
You're just assuming that the one piece I linked to is the only thing I've read on this topic?
By the way, the study you linked to only shows that role models have a significant effect on career choice, not that it's the "strongest driver" for career choice.
>And are you sure that non-whites do worse? I was under the impression that Asians generally do well.
There was better data I can't find, but see figure 4, for example.
https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/employment-outcomes-of-engine...
> Do you think it is because men are inherently, genetically more prone to enjoying football or because of the social environment?
Or both? I'd say, yes, that men are -- on average -- "genetically prone" to being more competitive, certainly in a physical, competitive sports way.
Groups of boys are more likely to want to play football than a group of similar-aged girls, and I think that would hold independently of socialisation.
And we shouldn't think of the "social environment" as something totally independent of our genetic nature, to a large extent it is the product of our genetic nature.
You’re missing the point.
More men want to watch football.
More men want a career in engineering.
Both statements are true. What is false is the notion that it’s right for both statements to be true. It’s not right. There’s a reason for both of them to be true and it’s rooted deeply in society’s prejudices, it’s not something that exists naturally in our genes. We are now getting to a point in civilisation where a large proportion of people recognise that this is not the way to carry on and progress.
There are still a few people who don’t get it though and when they speak their ‘honest opinion’ as truth, they get roundly rebuffed. The aim is to get them to understand why more men want to do certain things and why more women want to do other things.
At the moment you get women who don’t choose to do things, not because they consciously don’t want to, but because society thinks they shouldn’t because it’s unusual for them to do it. It’s so ingrained in all our subconsciouses that most women don’t even realise that they’re dismissing roles that are traditionally male.
> I'd suggest that nowadays the answer is "no" for most of the areas that get discussed.
People not like us might disagree.
> And we shouldn't think of the "social environment" as something totally independent of our genetic nature, to a large extent it is the product of our genetic nature.
No, and I don't totally reject the idea there may be some imbalance in career choices naturally. However, I do reject the idea that 80:20, or whatever, is natural in CS, and believe that masses of social biases and structures have a much bigger effect of women's (and everyone else's) choices. I also thinks this matters because you end up with people doing jobs they aren't best suited for and everyone loses as a results.
To add: I also agree that most formal structures in professional environments are now pretty "fair", even biased in some ways towards minority groups. It's the informal and non-structured areas where these effects play out.
No. Football is actually a game for women. They’re much better at it.
> ... There’s a reason for both of them to be true and it’s rooted deeply in society’s prejudices, it’s not something that exists naturally in our genes.
But how do we know this? Why can't it be the case that many of the on-average differences between male and female attitudes are indeed rooted in our genes?
> But how do we know this? Why can't it be the case that many of the on-average differences between male and female attitudes are indeed rooted in our genes?
We know the social effect is strong because the proportions vary wildly between countries. For example in the Netherlands 23% of science researchers are women while in Latvia it is over 50%. Unless you believe Latvians have odd genes that make them choose science, you have to look to social factors.
http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-women-in-science-2...
Pity you insist on going. There's probably someone qualified in Conflict Resolution who could sort all this out for us.
Bye. Nice hissy fit.
> I am so fundamentally bored of men with an agenda telling me that there is an agenda.
> Also, enough of the male "academics" lining up to tell us what women want, and using pop psychology, pseudo biology and social science to justify it when they are not psychologists, biologists or social scientists.
> UKC-The endless slew of these posts are why this forum is a hostile environment for women. I'd like to be be member of a forum that talks about climbing, the outdoors and the things I love. Yes I can choose not to read them. And from here on in I choose not to read them. Deleting my account. I've been a member for 15 years. I'm done.
> Edit. Seems UKC don't allow account deletion. I won't be back.
Well that escalated quickly..
> We know the social effect is strong because the proportions vary wildly between countries.
Of course that is true, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise, but it isn't the question that was asked! It also doesn't address the direction in which social effects are working. There is some evidence that social effects act in favour of gender equality rather than against it. Indeed, the figures you link to suggest that the arab world is far more equal in science participation than western Europe. That is paradoxical if you view these differences in career choice in terms of social conditioning.
I think it's great shame that Snoweider has decided UKC isn't a welcoming place for her. I don't think this is a 'flounce' or 'hissy fit', but, I suspect, the last straw, for something that's clearly been bothering her for some time.
Your responses here do you no credit, and only serve to demonstrate her point.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
> Of course that is true, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise,
It's exactly what Coel was querying.
> It also doesn't address the direction in which social effects are working. There is some evidence that social effects act in favour of gender equality rather than against it.
That probably depends when and where you are.
> Indeed, the figures you link to suggest that the arab world is far more equal in science participation than western Europe. That is paradoxical if you view these differences in career choice in terms of social conditioning.
How? It suggests to me social pressure on arabs who go to university point in certain directions and these are different to those in western Europe.
I would make exactly the same comment to a man who posted something like that. If you want to go, go. If you post about going you seem exactly like a teenager not getting his (or her) own way. "and another thing..."
And if you come back to edit your post saying your going but UKC won't let you delete your account but you're going anyway just looks childish.
Do you think men are genetically prone to computer coding?
> You’re missing the point.
> More men want to watch football.
> More men want a career in engineering.
> Both statements are true. What is false is the notion that it’s right for both statements to be true. It’s not right. There’s a reason for both of them to be true and it’s rooted deeply in society’s prejudices, it’s not something that exists naturally in our genes. We are now getting to a point in civilisation where a large proportion of people recognise that this is not the way to carry on and progress.
>
This is simply unproven. It may be so, but but just because you want to be true doesn't make it true.
> It's exactly what Coel was querying.
My reading was that he was asking how you could know whether or not there were biological gender differences in career preference. Demonstrating that there are large social effects does not really address this. It does not even give you clues about whether (and the magnitude) of the difference that would be left if you removed social effects.
> How? It suggests to me social pressure on arabs who go to university point in certain directions and these are different to those in western Europe.
I think that that is a reasonable interpretation. However, if your thesis is that women are conditioned to see science as a male field, and that this explains differences in participation, then you would predict that countries with higher equality indices would have lower differentials. In fact, the opposite is true.
One explanation is that there are different types of social pressures acting in different regions, another would be that it reflects innate differences. It is important (and not just from an academic perspective) that we know which is true. If someone claims to know, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them how (obviously not aimed at you btw).
> I think that that is a reasonable interpretation. However, if your thesis is that women are conditioned to see science as a male field, and that this explains differences in participation, then you would predict that countries with higher equality indices would have lower differentials. In fact, the opposite is true.
That's not what I was saying. I was saying in some countries the social pressures are against women entering science (and CS specifically) such as the UK and USA, but in others these pressures push in different directions. If you accept this, it seems to me proven that it is social pressures that dominate choices, not anything genetic.
> It's exactly what Coel was querying.
Well I was querying whether the natural ratio (in a perfect, unbiased society) would be 50:50, as is often assumed.
But, to expound on why I raised the issue. University departments like mine (and likely other similar institutions) are nowadays obliged to have gender-equality audits and accreditation, which are predicated on the assumption that if the ratio is not 50:50 then something is wrong, and most likely that "something" is us, and that we need to root out all the "hidden biases" that are keeping us below 50:50, and that we need to make plans for and document our "progress towards" 50:50.
And yet, taking my subject of physics, of those taking A-level physics in recent years, only 21.7% have been female. Which makes it near impossible for a physics dept to have a ratio near 50:50.
So either that 21.7% reflects deep biases in society -- which could be true but if so is not something that university departments alone can do much about.
Or that 21.7% reflects natural choices and innate differences on average between men and women. Or, perhaps most likely, it could be some mixture of both of these. And it seems to me that, if we have uni depts and similar being accredited over such issues, then we really need to consider what the "natural" ratio actually would be. We can't just assume that it "should be" 50:50.
So some object to the issue being discussed at all, finding the topic tiresome. OK, that's understandable. But equally this is an agenda being imposed on us by others, not something that we have any choice over.
As it is, there's a good chance that depts like ours (and similar in chemistry, comp sci, maths, engineering) will spend the next few decades being routinely criticised for having "wrong" sex ratios, and writing ever-more detailed reports searching for more and more deeply hidden and unconscious biases to try to root out the "problem" -- and all the time the stats hardly budging.
> University departments like mine (and likely other similar institutions) are nowadays obliged to have gender-equality audits and accreditation, which are predicated on the assumption that if the ratio is not 50:50 then something is wrong,
Really? Who accredits you? Here's the engineering accreditation guidelines. They don't even mention gender, let alone 50:50.
https://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/Accreditation%20of%2...
No mention I can see in the physics accreditation either
http://www.iop.org/education/higher_education/accreditation/file_43311.pdf
> Do you think men are genetically prone to computer coding?
Interpreting the question as:
Do men tend, on average, to be more interested in "things", including machines, computers, maths, coding, IT, physics, chemistry; and ...
Do women tend, on average, to be more interested in "people", including social interactions, biology, medicine, etc,
... then I'd likely -- evaluating the evidence as best I can -- say "yes", and that yes this is likely genetic. But, it's something that is hard to assess, so I could be wrong and the above biases could be due to social conditioning rather than being innate and genetic.
One thing I do think is that we should answer that question on the evidence, not on ideology or on how we want things to be.
> Really? Who accredits you?
Athena SWAN principally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_SWAN
> Here's the engineering accreditation guidelines. They don't even mention gender, let alone 50:50.
That's academic accreditation, which is a different thing.
> .... in some countries the social pressures are against women entering science (and CS specifically) such as the UK and USA, but in others these pressures push in different directions. If you accept this, it seems to me proven that it is social pressures that dominate choices, not anything genetic.
OK, that's fine, but earlier you pointed to the differences in gender ratios between countries as evidence that social pressures dominated. Now you are saying that this reflects different social pressures acting in different regions. However, this is indistinguishable (without additional evidence) from social pressures acting in one region and not in another. In other words, you still have to justify your assertion that biological differences play only a very minor role in gender inequality.
Athenaswan is about staff, not students.
It's not. From its website (oddly trans students are there)
Advance HE’s Athena SWAN Charter covers women (and men where appropriate) in:
academic roles in STEMM and AHSSBL
professional and support staff
trans staff and students
There’s growing evidence that there’s not a lot of difference between male and female brains. Girls will grow up more caring because that’s how they see their mothers behaving.
If it is genetic, it’s a hangover that we don’t really need anymore and is possibly harming our development as a civilisation.
Unfortunately this is an argument that is almost immediately destroyed by the simplest historical evidence.
In the 80s, 40% of the computing grad were women. Today it's down to 25/20%.
Unless female biology has changed within 40 years, it seems to me that this claim that women don't go into computing because of their biology is utter bollocks.
> Women invented computer programming, pioneered computer programming and dominated computer programming until the 80s, when it became a more lucrative (and respected) career and when computers and technology began to be aggressively marketed as toys for boys. An entire generation has grown up being told computers are for boys. Now we've got men shrugging their shoulders and saying "women don't seem to WANT to work in this field". Funny that.
Great post. I’ve done some work on taking computer science concepts to KS1 and this tentatively shows no geneder difference in either interest or aptitude.
People can discuss all they want on blogs and social media, but unless they have robust quantitative evidence showing that young children have a significant gender difference in aptitude all they are doing is blathering noise. One then has to ask “why are they doing this blathering?”.
I don’t have robust quantitative evidence either way, but I am working on it. I strongly beleive that being evidence based is a key point to removing the perception that there is some “agenda” behind D&E initiatives other than being nice and fair to everyone.
I can smell my dislikes already. Before you press the button, take a moment to think about your real reasons.
> It's not. From its website
If you look at the accreditation forms, they ask questions about everyone, including undergrads and postgrads.
http://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Department-Application-26.0...
> Unfortunately this is an argument that is almost immediately destroyed by the simplest historical evidence.
No it isn't. Evidence showing that biology is not the only factor is not the same as evidence that biology is not a factor at all.
> . . . unless they have robust quantitative evidence showing that young children have a significant gender difference in altitude all they are doing is blathering noise.
There is actually lots of evidence for gender differences in how young children play.
But then, the argument becomes, that's because of biased socialisation at even earlier ages.
> There’s growing evidence that there’s not a lot of difference between male and female brains. Girls will grow up more caring because that’s how they see their mothers behaving.
Can you point us to this evidence?
> No it isn't. Evidence showing that biology is not the only factor is not the same as evidence that biology is not a factor at all.
I have not said otherwise so I suggest you read again.
> There’s growing evidence that there’s not a lot of difference between male and female brains.
In terms of genetics, there is next to no difference between males and females, but I bet you can tell men and women apart at first sight in most cases; it just isn't a meaningful argument!
There is good evidence for large gender differences in personality traits and that these are more pronounced in more gender equal societies. Now I'm not claiming that this is conclusive evidence that personality differences are biological, but it does present a challenge to somebody who asserts that these differences are entirely (or mainly) social.
> Yes! This is where attention needs to be focused.
I'm an engineer and have worked in the oil and gas industry for twenty years and while things are slowly improving in terms of women entering the industry we are a long way from parity. My company works closely with several local schools in terms of arranging work experience, attending career fairs or giving presentations to pupils in a bid to promote engineering as a career and to put it bluntly the phrase 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink' comes to mind when dealing with female pupils. The teachers I deal with are trying hard to promote engineering as a career to these girls but at the end of the day there is a general disinterest no matter how bright the girls may be. Generally speaking, the boys are the only interested ones when discussing big engineering projects, who ask plenty of questions, who get excited at the prospect of working overseas or domestically in challenging environments or dealing with cutting edge technology and its the girls who are generally glazing over with boredom while staring into their phones. The teaching staff I have dealt with over the years have seen repeatedly girls achieving top grades in physics and maths A levels only for them to go off and study languages or some other humanities degree at uni.
There were just four women on my course at uni out of an intake of about 60 undergraduates. Engineering departments are not exactly known for their bawdy macho sexist 'jock' culture and the stereotype of nerdy types still kind of holds true today, it is basically still seen by many as being a deeply uncool subject up there with computing (sorry). I also know from first hand experience such is the demand by companies to recruit more women engineers that if there two candidates of equal merit with one being female the latter would get the nod every time.
So long as there are no gender barriers to women pursuing a career in whatever discipline they desire maybe we should just leave them to it rather then trying to achieve 50/50 parity in every industry?
That said, I have noticed it is only when engineers started to command decent salaries that suddenly 'something must be done' to get more women into the profession, nobody gave a shite when we were all paid peanuts to freeze our arses off on construction sites in the middle of winter.
> Do you think men are genetically prone to computer coding?
If yes, then surely that's evidence for Coel that the Intelligent Design types were right all along.
> Well I was querying whether the natural ratio (in a perfect, unbiased society) would be 50:50, as is often assumed.
>
The BBC's media show had a piece last week lamenting the fact that the ratio of male to female "experts" interviewed on mainstream news programmes was 2 to 1 last year (having fallen from 6:1 a few years ago and 4:1 two years ago). After a long discussion about what could be done about this one of the (female) experts eventually referenced an academic report which said that the ratio of male/female experts in general in areas like economics, politics, lawyers, culture etc (ie.potential interviewees) is about 2.5:1 .
So actually, the mainstream news programmes are already interviewing a disproportionate number of female experts relative to the actual proportion amongst potential interviewees. This fact was kind of noted, glossed over, and they went back to discussing how the media should interview an even more disproportionate number of female experts (but at pains to emphasise that social engineering was not part of their brief).
There is an issue. It’s pointless looking for the issue in a University. The issues are with children much younger. Girls are treated differently and respond to this. FWIW I and another woman taught coding at a girls school in my previous job. No issues, the girls enjoyed it and some of them were extremely good at it.
Its funny how in the past coding was considered women’s work. Something the girls did while the men got on with their engineering. Now it’s not and somehow we think women can’t do it.
I don’t suppose you’ve seen Hidden Figures? It’s a little dramatic, but the women are real. I quite enjoyed it.
> That said, I have noticed it is only when engineers started to command decent salaries that suddenly 'something must be done' to get more women into the profession, . .
Or take veterinary science. Being a vet is also pretty well paid these days, and in recent years about 78% of degrees in veterinary science have gone to women.
If this regarded as a problem by anyone (any vets around to comment)? It's not a problem to me if most vets are women, so long as any male wanting to be a vet is not told he can't.
Having worked in the IT industry for 3-4 years .I have had two female colleagues and around 50+ men (to hazard a rough guess) I've also seen a lot of the applications coming through for jobs and heard about interviews conducted by my superiors.
Woman just don't appear to actually be applying for jobs in IT, its not a sexism issue within the industry its that they aren't interested, based on my experience.
Why this is ?, I'm not sure. To claim there is no inherent difference between men and woman psychologically and that it is all a social construct is obviously false. My own feeling is that men are generally more interested in Inanimate "things" than they are people, and our career choices reflect that, and woman are generally the opposite Hence 92% of nurses are females (There are way more examples of this)
This idea makes complete sense, why would we evolve to be exactly the same when we have clearly performed different tasks in society for so long. Are people scared of this notion because it realizes the fact there are certain aspects of your personality than you cant control ?
> 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve
This whole notion seems really stupid to me. Why do we "need" to achieve a high ratio of women working in a particular industry. Is the goal not to have a free and open socitey where people can pick their own career choices, without prejudice. Does the out of balance ratio reflect the uncomfortable reality that men and woman are different which is threatening to modern day feminism and thus a false illusion of societal pressure and sexism is created?
It’s a very good example of what happens in a science based profession that doesn’t have any male/female bias.
What are the figures for GPs?
I remember seeing a tv program where people were lied to about the sex of a small child who was then encouraged to crawl on a sloping surface. The adults were far more cautious with the “girls”than the “boys”.
Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of it to look it up.
> You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Wow.
Snoweider is "fundamentally bored of men with an agenda telling me that there is an agenda."
She doesn't have to listen to any of it if its that boring. She can debate the idea, or ignore it entirely.
What is men's agenda? I have no idea.
But there is most certainly a diversity agenda. It is written down in policy and paper by just about every employer and educational establishment in the UK. It is in the news and discussed in parliament. Every job advert I look at specifically states we "welcome female and BME applicants", there are diversity and inclusion officers, diversity and inclusion training seminars, person specification requirements stating employees must embody diversity and inclusion ethics, and I see countless scholarships specifically targeting these groups. You'd have to have your head firmly in the sand not to be aware of a diversity agenda as it is something proudly proclaimed by nearly every institution in the country.
If male academics "lining up to tell us what women want" are unacceptable then so be it. From now on only females can comment on female issues......and only males get to comment on male issues. See where that gets us.
Three posts, all entirely moderate in tone, preceded Snoweider's. If that is a "toxic" environment and beyond allowable debate then perhaps she needs to look a little closer to home.
> OK, that's fine, but earlier you pointed to the differences in gender ratios between countries as evidence that social pressures dominated. Now you are saying that this reflects different social pressures acting in different regions.
Yes, that's saying the same thing.
> However, this is indistinguishable (without additional evidence) from social pressures acting in one region and not in another. In other words, you still have to justify your assertion that biological differences play only a very minor role in gender inequality.
So if I understand, you are saying that social pressures do indeed have a big effect, as evidenced by different gender balances in time and location, but that this doesn't show the "natural" balance is 50:50? If so, that is correct but its a huge stretch to suggest that this "natural" balance is 80:20 in some areas. If you are making this claim, or even a much smaller one of say 60:40, I think you have to provide the evidence for it that somehow controls for the social pressures, not expect others to find evidence against it. As above, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some genetic effect but I don't believe it will be large.
Also note that when it comes to choosing degree courses CS and engineering aren't commonly studied at school so children are making choices without really knowing whether they like these subjects or not, they have to base decisions on information from parents, role models and other sources that will naturally be heavily influenced by societal pressures.
> Coel's link was a perfectly reasonable view on why one might might not expect equality of outcome in particular areas of human activity.
It is not a reasonable point of view if it contradicts the available evidence.
In particular, the claim that we can't attract more women to work in computer science because of intrinsic biological differences between men and women looks particularly laughable when the share of women graduating in CS halved in 30 years.
This doesn't mean there aren't intrinsic difference, it's just that the claims that are being made are just complete speculations so far, which, I suspect, are more politically motivated than scientifically motivated.
Obviously, given my posting history, it should be clear I agree completely.
I saw this tweeted recently:
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/992019796685344768
Now obviously it isn't about CS or career-choice specifically, but it was an interesting graph and I think relevant to this discussion.
As was noted, "For many, the bottom of this graph is evidence of systematic sexism; never mind the top...".
And as one of my old lecturers tweeted in response "has no one figured out you need to squeeze the tube at the top to get the paste to the bottom".
The diversity and inclusion agenda suffers from its narrow scope, and a failure (as Damore pointed out) to consider diversity beyond a few limited areas.
> But there is most certainly a diversity agenda. It is written down in policy and paper by just about every employer and educational establishment in the UK. It is in the news and discussed in parliament.
And, since the UK tends to ape trends in the US, it's worth noting that the University of Michigan currently employs 93 full time people (often on high salaries) to pursue its "diversity, equity and inclusion" agenda. Yes, *93*.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-university-of-michi...
I’m disappointed that the graph isn’t in pink and blue.
> I’m disappointed that the graph isn’t in pink and blue.
Indeed. That would most definitely prove institutional sexism and the terrible depths of patriarchal oppression.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/597b/2daa8e2cb17dba9cb1806d4962e154189f9f....
It's an interesting article. I also remember reading something similar with kids who were presented as girls (regardless of actual gender) being perceived as making more eye contact and being more engaged with parents than the same children presented as boys. This kind of behaviour is then picked up and reinforced by positive feedbacks from parents.
Hi Coel, I would be one of those darned acredditors of which you speak... please don’t be alarmed, we come in peace
Athena Swan is a benchmarking excercise, and one where the department/ institution chooses the data to benchmark against. For example, if you were looking at gender balance among students, you’d probably compare male:female ratios against the same JACS code in other universities. If there was a 70:30 split across the sector, but a department had a 90:10 split, then that department would (should) need to understand and explain the reasons behind the difference. If an issue is found during this evaluation, then the department is free to propose any course of action that it can argue is appropriate. An award will be made, or not, on how effectively a department has evaluated its own position, and whether or not its action plan follows from the data. There is no arbitrary figure attached to any form or representation.
> It’s a very good example of what happens in a science based profession that doesn’t have any male/female bias.
How is this even vaguely logical?
80/20 gender split in coding= V. bad
78/22 gender split in veterinary science= V. good???
Hi Pawthos, thanks for your input, that's interesting. What you say is not the impression that we sometimes get (OK, we may be wrong.)
> Athena Swan is a benchmarking excercise, and one where the department/ institution chooses the data to benchmark against. For example, if you were looking at gender balance among students, you’d probably compare male:female ratios against the same JACS code in other universities.
This suggests that we can achieve Athena Swan accreditation by being in line with national norms in our subject. Is that true? Certainly a "gold" award would seem to require approaching equality, not just being in line with national norms.
From the website (added emphasis): "A Gold department award recognises significant and sustained progression and *achievement* by the department in promoting gender *equality* and to address challenges particular to the discipline. A well-established record of activity and *achievement* in working towards gender *equality* should be complemented by data demonstrating continued impact. Gold departments should be beacons of *achievement* in gender *equality* and should champion and promote good practice to the wider community."
Now it may be that a Bronze level award is indeed achievable by being in line with national norms, but it seems to require at least an aspiration and demonstrable effort towards 50:50 ratios, even if they're not achieved. Or is this all a wrong impression?
> And, since the UK tends to ape trends in the US, it's worth noting that the University of Michigan currently employs 93 full time people (often on high salaries) to pursue its "diversity, equity and inclusion" agenda. Yes, *93*.
You mean about 1% of their annual budget. Not to mention their large endowment. Given the focus that US universities have on in-state students and the well known social problems within the state, it starts to look more reasonable.
I think they must have done a version of that experiment.
> I would make exactly the same comment to a man who posted something like that.
And if you had, I would have called 'shame', too.
A perfectly reasonable member of this community has decided to leave because of the perceived prevailing attitude, and this doesn't bother you?
It bothers me. It makes me think about my posts here, and what attitude I present to UKC (and the world), and what attitude UKC presents.
> But there is most certainly a diversity agenda.
I'm no fan of enforced 'gender equality'; positive discrimination to one minority is negative discrimination to someone else. I work in a electronics, where males predominate. I would consider it unfair to modify our recruitment or promotion policies to be preferential. Unfair on everyone.
Coel's argument that the uptake of staff should be commensurate with A-level (or graduation) stats seems reasonable, but I would encourage STEM outreach to look at why uptake is lower.
I prefer equality of opportunity, which includes those STEM and outreach programmes I mentioned earlier.
What is an "intrinsic biological difference"?
> What is an "intrinsic biological difference"?
An intrinsic property is one that manifests within, so I am referring to biological differences that are not caused by the environment. Or you could say "innate".
> So long as there are no gender barriers to women pursuing a career in whatever discipline they desire maybe we should just leave them to it rather then trying to achieve 50/50 parity in every industry?
From my experience of working for D&E a bit, none of us are trying to achieve a 50/50 parity but to remove barriers that amplify disparity.
If there was no difference between men and women there could not possibly be a deviation from 50/50 - that’s pure logic. You need detectable differences to be able to treat people differently.
But there are differences - some genetic, some learned, some societal. We have to recognise and understand those differences to understand how to remove factors that amplify those differences. In my experience this almost always results in change that makes the workplace nicer for everyone.
My growing feeling is that society as a whole is badly distorting right down to junior school - look at the targeting of girls by the fashion and cosmetic industries - two massive industries largely built on convincing especially one gender to depend on them by systematically attacking the core of their identity from their earliest years - without this you are ugly, you are not good enough, you don’t smell right, nobody will look twice at you, you won’t find love, you won’t succeed in the workplace. You need us. It’s a corrosive acid on society.
UK cosmetics is £10 Bn per year. Each year I buy 4-5 bars of soap and one cheap bottle of shampoo...
But I do think that societal change involves every workplace and every school - all the work going on will spread and nudge society. Returning to cosmetics, the problem is the industry has for the last decade been strategically expanding sales to men to grow their market, equality but not the better kind...
> From the website (added emphasis): "A Gold department award recognises significant and sustained progression and *achievement* by the department in promoting gender *equality* and to address challenges particular to the discipline.
This kind of thing feels risky to me.
What if a department works towards full equality of opportunity and beyond, but persistently fails to reach close to a 50:50 split.
Reaching true inequality of outcome (if a gold rating is the target) then only becomes possible by overshooting equal opportunity goals and introducing preferential placements for females. Or if not preferential placements, creating an environment that is devoid of elements appealing to male interests.
Surely this is active discrimination against males, even if they do continue to constitute a majority? Effectively a lack of gender equality because females would receive overtly preferential treatment. Seems crazy. Especially so if all we are doing is attempting to push a ball uphill with a piece of string.
In contrast to Snoweider, I think males surely have every right to feel entitled to an opinion if this is the case
> Or take veterinary science. Being a vet is also pretty well paid these days, and in recent years about 78% of degrees in veterinary science have gone to women.
Not that well paid (thread appropriate source)
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/worklife/careers/a33179/average-job-salarie...
> If this regarded as a problem by anyone (any vets around to comment)? It's not a problem to me if most vets are women, so long as any male wanting to be a vet is not told he can't.
I think the profession is pretty cool with the situation - we have had equality or female dominance for 20-30 years now. Some people do talk about widening participation for boys, but no one is doing anything active about it AFAIK.
Perceived barriers for male entry are that the profession does not pay that well and so boys are not as attracted to the degree, that being a vet is increasingly perceived as a female dominated job and that girls often outperform boys at school so are better placed to get the high grades required.
All fair enough.
My concern is the case seems to be being made that the barriers to females entering certain sectors (due to lack of evidence of their existence, and only therefore assumed by outcomes) are subtle, insidious, and un-detectable. That there may be no overt pressure against females but that the thousands of paper-cuts do have that impact.
There is a counter-argument here. What about the males sitting in classes, or applying for positions, these days. Already under-achieving. Seeing tangible, specific, targetted efforts, from government down to careers advisors, to direct girls in to (ahem, well-paid) under-represented professions. Massive investment that YOU are specifically wanted.
Might this have an effect of directly discouraging males? We're not talking subtle here. We're talking very unsubtle. I've felt this to a degree when applying for jobs recently, where the job advert all but states "we really want BME/female" applicants.
The issue at least seems worthy of discussion, and if we are going to have the perspectives of females given then also the perspectives of males would seem in order. Just because one group happens to over-represented, doesn't mean their treatment is any better.
When you look at computing , for example, it's actually quite striking that there were lots of women, almost parity, in the field in its early years.
Many of them were in fact pioneers.
The share of women in computing fell drastically during the 80s coincidentally, with the boom of personal computing, and the marketing of computer as an expensive toy for men.
Within the enterprise as well, before the 80s operating a computer was seen as light industrial work or secretarial work "suitable" for women. As soon as it became clear that IT was actually a core strategic component that could provide for high status and high pay jobs, of course women were gently pushed out...
Now I'm not saying those who say biological differences play a role are wrong, I'm saying they probably need the look at quantifying how big a role it plays. Given that most of the variance across geography and time cannot be explained by biological factors, these claims are quite odd.
They give every indication of doing a good job too.
> An intrinsic property is one that manifests within, so I am referring to biological differences that are not caused by the environment. Or you could say "innate".
How do we know if the different brain processes, chemistry,structures and activities of men and women are "innate" or are caused by the environment?
The simple fact that gender ratios vary widely by country makes your arguments nonsense. Why don't you do a simple search to see what the bulk of the research evidence out there says? It's all rather embarrassing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_disparity_in_computing
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/08/why-are-there-so-few-w...
I really hope Blank doesn't leave UKC.
> It’s a corrosive acid on society.
I thought acids in cosmetics were banned,
> Perceived barriers for male entry are that the profession does not pay that well and so boys are not as attracted to the degree,
This may be the nub of the issue.
We appear to want to convince ourselves otherwise, but I suspect, even if only subliminally, the following is still the case:
Boys are aware that the best predictor of their appeal to the opposite sex is status, and that this largely comes from their employment, within which is defined by seniority and income.
They probably don't care if that profession is as an engineer or as a vet. Whichever sectors allow them to exercise the skills they have to their maximum advantage (hence why unskilled male workers target dangerous, dirty or otherwise high paid manual labour) allowing for progression in status, and for income maximisation, they are likely to be especially driven to fill.
So long as women have wombs; will therefore leave professions for months, years, or permanently, to have children; and will rely on either their partner or the state to provide for their income during those periods; it strikes me that non-womb-bearers will continue to feel additional pressure (a pressure that women may be wholly unaware of) to secure jobs that provide status and income above all else.
There may be intrinsic aptitude or interest differences between males and females. But these are either minor, or likely to only play out at the exceptional ends of the bell curves. Given employment choices between males and females appear to vary substantially over place and time, this might simply represent the different statuses or incomes those professions offer in those different eras or countries. With males and females self-selecting in to those roles. Males and females might simply, for the most part, have different drivers propelling them towards whichever sector best serves their interests.
> How do we know if the different brain processes, chemistry,structures and activities of men and women are "innate" or are caused by the environment?
I don't think we actually have much of a clue about it.
> There may be intrinsic aptitude or interest differences between males and females. But these are either minor, or likely to only play out at the exceptional ends of the bell curves.
It's actually worse : it's not even clear that abilities are generally normally distributed. It's just an assumption.
So even at the tails of the distribution it's not even clear that this would actually have an impact.
To sum it up : those who makes those claims actually have no f*cking clue.
My 22 year old daughter Had a 1st class degree in computer science. Works in London. In charge of a software integration team for the next few weeks.
Her only experience of sexism sexism was in the university sector from students and professors.
> To sum it up : those who makes those claims actually have no f*cking clue.
And neither do those who make claims females are discriminated against, denied entry, or generally the victims of malign influences preventing them from attaining placements into STEM. There is no evidence to show that the barriers to their entry are higher than men's either.
The "those" you refer to should include people from both sides of the argument. Though apparently, the researchers who focus on gender-difference and traits probably have a better idea than anyone here.
> The simple fact that gender ratios vary widely by country makes your arguments nonsense.
My arguments are basically that I don't think we should automatically accept that a "natural" sex balance in a particular profession would always be 50:50, and thus that we shouldn't necessarily aim for that.
That is not refuted by the fact that ratios vary widely by country. I've never asserted that social factors are negligible.
Indeed, it's the people who discount underlying biology who think they know the relative importance of biology vs socialisation in such things.
These things are often used as a stick to beat academics with - in which case, I am genuinely sad to hear it.
I can't give you a straight/concise answer... it all depends on context (sorry). For example, that department with the 90:10 split might be in a university that recruits students only from say a 50 mile radius where feeder schools/colleges have only 5% of female students enrolled on STEM subjects. In this instance, a 10% female UG population might evidence a department working really hard with schools and being very successful in promoting STEM - excellent work, have a bronze!
Silver and Gold are much more difficult and are tied to the performance of both the institution AND the other departments (that quote also refers to the numbers of departments holding which award and for how long plus the level of the institutional award).
I entirely agree with comments on this thread that 50:50 isn't realistic, nor aspirational. A CS department with a 50:50 gender split, but demoralised and disenfranchised male staff wouldn't achieve anything, least of all an Athena Swan award. What is important is that the department and institution can demonstrate a sustained programme of work that removes artificial barriers wherever they are found, that this work has had measurable positive impacts for everyone, and that no-one was left behind during the process.
Would Athena swan give an award to a vet school that managed to increase the proportion of boys recruited?
> What is important is that the department and institution can demonstrate a sustained programme of work that removes artificial barriers wherever they are found, . . .
As an expert in this area, would you say that there still are artificial barriers in many fields, preventing fair access?
I've recently read our department's submission, written by a team who are fully on-board with this agenda, and thus trying hard to identify and remove such barriers. On my reading, not one "action item" identified any real or actual "barrier", nearly all the action items were vague aspirational talk along the lines of "try harder to promote ...".
> I don't think we actually have much of a clue about it.
So where in Coel's link did the writer attribute the gender disparity in CS to "innate biological differences"?
In my experience, the majority of men in tech are not sexist. There are a few dickheads of course but not the norm.
However, group behaviour can often be sexist without even being intentional.
If the environnement is male dominated, it's quite easy for the men to shut out the women without even realising they are doing it.
Brilliant film, and at least according to Wikipedia, true to the real story.
Second time this year I’ve agreed with you on something Rom. Good gods.
To clarify though:
> Now I'm not saying those who say biological differences play a role are wrong, I'm saying they probably need the look at quantifying how big a role it plays.
In my post I was alluding to those differences affecting the course different people take through our education - junior, senior, further and higher, and to their different routes through industry. This clearly has a much larger effect than any gender bias on intrinsic interest or ability, as evidenced by countless statistics comparing between different countries or single and mixed sex environments etc.
> And neither do those who make claims females are discriminated against, denied entry, or generally the victims of malign influences preventing them from attaining placements into STEM. There is no evidence to show that the barriers to their entry are higher than men's either.
We aren't discussing those sorts of hard barriers here. It's the softer ones, like the myriad assumptions, hints and omissions made well before career choices are even made that affect children's perceptions and ideas about different subjects. Universities, companies, and professions have a duty, I think, to influence this environment by communicating better what subjects with large gender (or other) imbalances are about so children can make better and more informed choices.
More generally the shouty sides of these discussions on both sides are really annoying. Ridiculous claims such as 80:20 being the natural state of affairs in CS on one side, and seeing absolutely everything through the lens of gender on the other, are entirely counter-productive.
But this in Norway, not the UK
looks societal to meunless there's a genetic barrier at about 31E.
His claim that "we will never reach gender parity" in tech, and that "Having 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve" imply a fundamental impossibility linked to a difference between genders that we cannot change.
Well frankly I don't see how he comes up with those claims, which are in fact, easily rebutted with historical evidence of the contrary.
She would disagree with you at Uni level.
In a work environment she finds it more balanced.
> It’s pointless looking for the issue in a University. The issues are with children much younger.
Where do their teachers do their first degree and then their PGCE? I think there is a “memory cycle” that loops around schools and universities with influence drawn from the wider world. Every part of that cycle is a chance to change things for the better.
I actually think of it more as a cyclical set of stochastic differential equations with several stable solutions across their parameter space. To change the stable solution all equations need their parameters changing.
> His claim that "we will never reach gender parity" in tech, and that "Having 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve" imply a fundamental impossibility of a genetic nature, given that's the only thing that we cannot (yet) really change.
>
I'll repeat my question.
He cites potential explanations for his 20% estimate. Which one refers to "innate biological factors" (as opposed to you inferring innate biological factors)?
> I'll repeat my question.
> He cites potential explanations for his 20% estimate. Which one refers to "innate biological factors" (as opposed to you inferring innate biological factors)?
I've explained above. It's the necessary implication of his claim.
I've not seen any clear explanation of his claim in the article.
> I've explained above. It's the necessary implication of his claim.
So, you've just inferred it. I see.
> So, you've just inferred it. I see.
Yes, exactly, I've deducted it from reasoning.
But if you have another explanation as to why reaching parity would be impossible, I'm all ears.
> I prefer equality of opportunity, which includes those STEM and outreach programmes I mentioned earlier.
The problem is by the time people reach the age where they will encounter these measures they've often been pre conditioned. Boys and girls school uniforms differ, separate sports lessons, hours of stereotypical roles in movies & tv programmes... friends, family and teachers who still live in middle ages... most kids career paths will start steering towards a given track when they pick their exams subjects aged 13 or so.
> But if you have another explanation as to why reaching parity would be impossible possible, I'm all ears.
Because you are more likely to be somewhere on the autism or aspergers spectrum, even if just by a small amount, as a boy than a girl. That's not to say everyone in IT has it to some level, but it is much more prevalent in males and some of these traits do lend themselves to very specific employment sectors? Wonder if there are any studies or genuine correlation & causation.
Adopted twin studies in the last 20 years put intellect down to 50% genetic, 50% environment. So why can't the kind of work you are drawn to be at least 50% genetic influence too?
> But if you have another explanation as to why reaching parity would be impossible, I'm all ears.
>
Where does he say that it is "impossible", rather than that it won't be achieved?
Maybe sees no likelihood of the biological differences changing in the foreseeable future, or maybe ever? There could be lots of reasons for that.
Recently it’s becoming clear that autism is massively under diagnosed in women and girls, and that actually it seems likely that as this is addressed it will be an even split.
> I've recently read our department's submission, written by a team who are fully on-board with this agenda, and thus trying hard to identify and remove such barriers. On my reading, not one "action item" identified any real or actual "barrier", nearly all the action items were vague aspirational talk along the lines of "try harder to promote ...".
Do you think your department is ahead of the curve on equality, or are your Athens Swan team behind?
I ask as astronomy in the UK and internationally isn’t exactly a beacon of best practice in terms of working environments.
There have been several high profile cases of people in senior positions across the field significantly abusing those positions and junior staff - disproportionately women. There’s been a lot of social media activity on the subject as well. One doesn’t have to speak with many early career researchers in the field to hear of this institution or that failing to tackle professor XYZ.
Geoffry Marcy wasn’t a one off lapse of judgment kind of a problem. He was an example of decade long failings at multiple levels of an institution to tackle someone harassing female students and covering their arse instead. The ETH Zurich example is insane - the whole institute shut down in relation to bullying by senior management; both male and female.
I’m curious - are you hoping to make a positive contribution to your departments team based on the views sought in this thread?
> Recently it’s becoming clear that autism is massively under diagnosed in women and girls, and that actually it seems likely that as this is addressed it will be an even split.
Perhaps. Only going on what I've read. I see no why reason why it might not be, time for better testing and studies.
I think parents and nursery staff looking after tiny pre school children is a good place to start. But obviously you are right, it needs change all around.
Im not sure what happened in the 1980s. I was at school then, and stereotypes seem to have got worse and not better. Things which were unfashionable then are back in fashion, including the idea that girls are pretty and not clever and like pink shiny stuff.
Some good stuff happening here - mostly in primary schools
> The problem is by the time people reach the age where they will encounter these measures they've often been pre conditioned.
I don't disagree that conditioning is pervasive and starts at birth. But there's not much I can do about that, except try to counter it where I can; trying to encourage my nieces, and support my company's outreach programme. We start as early as we can; pre secondary school.
Disappointingly, the daughter of one of my friends came home from school with a 'match the jobs to the sex' sheet. To her credit, she answered 'either' to every job. Sadly, there seemed to be no follow up discussion, so the point of the work seemed confused at best, or, at worst, promoting retrogressive attitudes.
Of course you can only influence the elements you control.
My sister in law, a teacher, when her child was born said "I am so glad I had a boy so we will be able to do outdoor things together". I just bit my tongue a little and pointed out that she was a girl, the point seemed lost on her. I despair.
> Where does he say that it is "impossible", rather than that it won't be achieved?
It's the same thing. If can't be achieved then by definition, it's impossible.
> Maybe sees no likelihood of the biological differences changing in the foreseeable future, or maybe ever? There could be lots of reasons for that.
Well that is exactly what I am saying, the only explanation for his claims is that somehow these fundamentals, irremovable differences are putting a lower bound on the gap.
It seems to be a compeltely substantiated claim, and moreover, an slightly odd one, given that we observe a large historical and geographical variance, suggesting that large changes are perfectly possible.
> It's the same thing. If can't be achieved then by definition, it's impossible.
>
Where did he say it "can't" be achieved?
> Well that is exactly what I am saying, the only explanation for his claims is that somehow there must be permanent differences between men of women, and that we will never close this gap no matter how hard we try because of it.
>
He might believe that that there societal reasons why the biological differences will not change, maybe ever, or more likely within his career or his lifespan.
> Recently it’s becoming clear that autism is massively under diagnosed in women and girls, and that actually it seems likely that as this is addressed it will be an even split.
you got any references on that, I've seen a few articles from 2011 (eg Gould &Ashton-Smith) but nothing much newer or follow ups / developments of their ideas/proposals.
Whenever people try to put women and men into categories they tie themselves in knots. Its complicated but not that difficult to understand.
This equality and diversity thing. People should just check who has the power. It generally ain't women. Maybe a more equal society might reduce the number of equality and diversity agendas. Maybe if people shared the money round more, people would be less unhappy.
It ain't rocket science.
> I ask as astronomy in the UK and internationally isn’t exactly a beacon of best practice in terms of working environments.
I don't really know how astronomy rates compared to other fields. It's hard to go by the number of publicised scandals unless one is confident that all such things are known about.
> I’m curious - are you hoping to make a positive contribution to your departments team based on the views sought in this thread?
No, not really, just discussing the issues.
> Where did he say it "can't" be achieved?
He claims: "We will never reach gender parity". If gender parity in tech is unreachable , then, by definition, it can't be achieved (and vice versa)
> He might believe that that there societal reasons why the biological differences will not change, maybe ever, or more likely within his career or his lifespan.
Sure, fine, he might, but I really don't see how this is relevant at all to his point or mine.
> He claims: "We will never reach gender parity". I'm not too sure what it is you are having trouble with.
>
You are unaware of the difference between "cannot" and "will not"?
> Sure, fine, maybe, but it seems you are getting quite lost here, why these biological differences occur isn't relevant to his point or mine.
>
So you agree that if the biological differences are the result of environment they may never change? Good, you agree.
Well, I’ve never seen an application quite like that... but some of the best ones I’ve seen are where the department finds a different issue to the one they expected and moved to address it - for example, white males underperforming in assessments and being disproportionately more likely to drop out than females of any ethnicity. I think it was in a successful silver application and under the old principles too.
Because both subjects are science based. So saying women aren’t interested in science is clearly nonsense.
QED
> The ETH Zurich example is insane - the whole institute shut down in relation to bullying by senior management; both male and female.
Feck me!! Didn't know about that.
> So saying women aren’t interested in science is clearly nonsense.
Has anyone on this thread said that?
There does seem to be a difference in sex balance between things like chemistry, physics, engineering and comp sci, on the one hand, and things like biology, veterinary science, medicine and social science on the other. All of these are science based.
You said...
> It’s a very good example of what happens in a science based profession that doesn’t have any male/female bias.
What I don't understand is why you'd think a degree subject with no gender bias ends up with a massive gender imbalance of 78% female graduates and how on Earth this would reflect equality of opportunity let alone outcome.
If we should decry the fact that computer sciences attract far more men than women then why should the reverse in another field be celebrated?
Edit: typo.
> Would Athena swan give an award to a vet school that managed to increase the proportion of boys recruited?
it's something we consider in our submissions (Psychology not Vets)
i really shouldn’t go around pretending to be an expert in anything
But I will say an application that is vague in the way you suggest probably won’t go down very well with the committee. I wonder if the SAT have found a ‘critical freind’ to review the application?
PS - thank you for such an interesting and thought provoking post too! There’s a lot of food for thought on this thread.
Because women are clearly interested in science. So something is going on that is steering them into one field of science instead of another.
Yawn. I have said the same thing to other posters that announce their departure previously.
The OP has generated quite an interesting discussion - which the departed's post looks a little odd within now.
> You are unaware of the difference between "cannot" and "will not"?
I am aware thanks.
But if something will never happen, it also cannot happen, and vice versa. They don't mean the same thing but one implies the other.
You can keep splitting hairs if you like, but I don't see what is it you gain from this.
> So you agree that if the biological differences are the result of environment they may never change? Good, you agree.
It's a possibility, I don't see the relevance to the point though.
I'll restate it simply since it seems to be difficult :
His claims is that we will never reach parity, and that at best we will probably do about 20%.
I don't see even a glimpse of scientific evidence backing up this claim.
> I am aware thanks.
> But if something will never happen, it also cannot happen, and vice versa. They don't mean the same thing but one implies the other.
>
Simply not true.
> It's a possibility, I don't see the relevance to the point though.
>
If the environmentally based biological differences may never change then their possible outcomes ie.gender disparities may never change. Therefore, his argument that the disparities won't change is not contingent upon the biological differences being innate. It's not difficult and you have already agreed that the premise is possible.
> If we should decry the fact that computer sciences attract far more men than women then why should the reverse in another field be celebrated?
Is anybody saying that the reverse should be celebrated ? If yes that strikes me a quite dumb. I think the main point here is that there is strong evidence that diversity in the workplace (in gender but also in cultural background) generates better returns. In fact it is a well studied phenomenon, diverse groups tend to outperform homogeneous groups, even homogeneous groups of high ability individual. The focus on diversity in the workplace is therefore, by and large, the result of cold calculation. If hiring 10 engineers at the top of their game, all male, white and British is more expensive and produce less revenue that hiring a more diverse group of engineers, simply because the diverse group can leverage synergies that emerge out of their differences, then positive discrimination makes sense.
The irony is that this argument actually doesn't deny that there are differences between people and gender (innate or otherwise) on the contrary, it highlights their value.
I can see how this change we are going through can feel threatening for white males, but overall, they are in fact likely to increase their own productivity as result of this increased diversity, and gain as well.
> Simply not true.
You are going to have to explain to us how something that will never happen can happen.
I'll let you mull that one !
> If the environmentally based biological differences may never change then their possible outcomes ie.gender disparities may never change. Therefore, his argument that the disparities won't change is not contingent upon the biological differences being innate. It's not difficult and you have already agreed that the premise is possible.
Ok, sure, but given that it's unclear whether that premise is true, it's a moot point, and either way, doesn't address the problem with his claim.
> "I am so glad I had a boy so we will be able to do outdoor things together"
That's depressing, isn't it?
Dear Blank
I don't think we have ever conversed directly, but you are/have been nevertheless one of my favourite posters. You never show off, you are supportive and generous, always intelligent and with significant insight in some areas. Despite provocation and opportunity I have never seen you stoop to snide mocking - as some on this thread have done - remaining unfailingly courteous, honest and sensible. In short, you are bloody great.
But for me your chief characteristic is courage, and I applaud the courage in this, your final post, even as I regret it. This forum desperately needs more posters like you, not fewer, and I wish you would stay as a role model for others less courageous than you.
Best wishes.
> I am so fundamentally bored of men with an agenda telling me that there is an agenda.
> Also, enough of the male "academics" lining up to tell us what women want, and using pop psychology, pseudo biology and social science to justify it when they are not psychologists, biologists or social scientists.
Thank you for this post.
xxx
> > "I am so glad I had a boy so we will be able to do outdoor things together"
> That's depressing, isn't it?
It is. Especially a teacher. But I blame her parents, her mother never worked(through choice), dad was the bread winner etc.. conditioned.
> This equality and diversity thing. People should just check who has the power. It generally ain't women. Maybe a more equal society might reduce the number of equality and diversity agendas. Maybe if people shared the money round more, people would be less unhappy.
Maybe because of observable genetic, chemical and hormonal differences in men and women, women on average have less desire for power and money etc... ? Even if every country in the world had equal availability, you would never have equal up take in every profession, every board of directors, every ftse CEO? But that does not mean that society shouldn't strive for equal chances for all, just not get hung up on specific results.
> Maybe because of observable genetic, chemical and hormonal differences in men and women, women on average have less desire for power and money etc... ?
Average differences between groups do not necessarily drive average differences between individuals, and vice versa.
A common fallacy, unfortunately.
> Average differences between groups do not necessarily drive average differences between individuals, and vice versa.
Of course... But men and women are different genetically, physically, hormonally.. you don't think this has any difference on our traits and desires?
Around 2 million years of our species evolution where women gave birth and raised children etc... in a small tribal setting, might just have a greater influence than less than 100 of relatively equal rights to vote, work and education.
As I said above, we should strive for giving everyone equal chances, but not be disappointed when up take varies. No one uses column inches complaining about the lower numbers of men in nurseries, dental nurses, hair salons, mid wifes etc..
Interesting thanks, I’ve always perceived Athena Swan as purely a female equality orientated exercise but clearly not - the example of focusing on poorly performing white males is a good one and a pressing societal challenge in some communities, occasionally brought up on threads like these.
> Because both subjects are science based. So saying women aren’t interested in science is clearly nonsense.
> QED
Well, both are science based, but the job you might expect to go into at the start of the degree is quite different - fluffy kittens and so on vs long hours in spent of a VDU. Perhaps people are interested in the career first and the science second?
The underperformance at secondary school of white English boys from working class areas is a massive issue and one that all teachers should be aware of. It's the other side of the coin.
It's anecdotal I'm afraid. As a late diagnosed female I've met lots of others in the same position and as a teacher I see an equal split. I can have a look for anything official later.
That comment reminds me of the Harry Enfield sketch.
> Of course... But men and women are different genetically, physically, hormonally.. you don't think this has any difference on our traits and desires?
Yes that it's probably true, but this doesn't mean this explains the gender balance deviation in the workplace. It's flawed reasoning to just assume that it does.
> Around 2 million years of our species evolution where women gave birth and raised children etc... in a small tribal setting, might just have a greater influence than less than 100 of relatively equal rights to vote, work and education.
Maybe, maybe not, either way, it shows how large and varied the variation in the role of women in society can be. This suggests that transitory factors are far more important than permanent ones.
> As I said above, we should strive for giving everyone equal chances, but not be disappointed when up take varies. No one uses column inches complaining about the lower numbers of men in nurseries, dental nurses, hair salons, mid wifes etc..
And my guess is that such large imbalance is probably damaging for these traditionally female occupations. As I've explained in another post there are good scientific reason to think that diverse groups perform better.
I agree with you. My post was in response to this:
> It’s a very good example of what happens in a science based profession that doesn’t have any male/female bias.
Which was a comment on 78% of veterinary grads being women.
If there isn't a male/female bias the split would be closer to 50/50, no?
> If there isn't a male/female bias the split would be closer to 50/50, no?
Pretty much by definition, yes.
>> If there isn't a male/female bias the split would be closer to 50/50, no?
> Pretty much by definition, yes.
No, not by definition. That would presume that the natural ratio is always 50:50, such that deviation from that must be caused by bias in the profession.
> Or both? I'd say, yes, that men are -- on average -- "genetically prone" to being more competitive, certainly in a physical, competitive sports way.
Where have your ideas on this come from? What makes you think that any difference is genetic, rather than environmental?
One thing that I've noticed is that when women are on their own, they are far more competitive, assertive and aggressive. I think part of this is that women are taught from an early age that these things are threatening and unattractive to men, and the second reason is that people get more competitive when they are closely matched in the chance that they might win. If you know you will win, you can be quite relaxed about it, if you know you will lose, you don't really try. When you *might* win, you get more fired up.
> Groups of boys are more likely to want to play football than a group of similar-aged girls, and I think that would hold independently of socialisation.
Why (on earth???) do you think this would hold true independently of socialisation? Most of the football seen is men playing football. Most famous footballers are male. Girls are encouraged from an early age to be quiet, to play nicely, to be careful.
> We know the social effect is strong because the proportions vary wildly between countries.
Another clue that the social effect (rather than genetics) is strong is when ratios change over time, for example with the number of women politicians.
> And we shouldn't think of the "social environment" as something totally independent of our genetic nature, to a large extent it is the product of our genetic nature.
Dr Sarcasm says “yes, you are clearly right, as one can tell by the high level of similarity between different social cultures world wide.”
> No, not by definition. That would presume that the natural ratio is always 50:50, such that deviation from that must be caused by bias in the profession.
So your contention is that one gender is more suited to veterinary science than the other? Really?
> What makes you think that any difference is genetic, rather than environmental?
I'm not suggesting that it's entirely genetic, of course environmental influences are important.
But things like twin studies tell us that, as a rule, genetic factors are important -- much more so than commonly supposed. As a rule of thumb, both genetic and environmental factors have large and significant roles.
> Dr Sarcasm says “yes, you are clearly right, as one can tell by the high level of similarity between different social cultures world wide.”
Which is true. There is indeed a lot of similarly between how human society operates across the world and across time. Generally, a person can go and live in another culture and find a lot of similarity in how people think, feel, interact, etc. They don't feel they are amongst an alien species, they can fit in fairly readily.
> So your contention is that one gender is more suited to veterinary science than the other? Really?
No, my contention is that a higher fraction of one sex thinks that healing sick animals as a career attracts them.
> So your contention is that one gender is more suited to veterinary science than the other? Really?
Perhaps certain traits suit certain jobs. A lone working engineer versus say a nurse on an intensive care ward team, both have a technical or scientific academic level, but also require different personal traits? Overall are all traits equal across the sexes?
> Another clue that the social effect (rather than genetics) is strong ...
There is a slightly frustrating way these conversations tend to go:
A) Adopts general presumption that everything is social, and that genetics are irrelevant.
B) But genetics are likely to be equally important.
A) But the evidence for social effects is strong, how can you say that everything is genetic and that there are no social effects?
B) I'm not, I'm saying that both are important.
A) But what makes you think genetics are important; the evidence that social effects are important is strong!
B) No-one is denying that social effects are strong, but we shouldn't automatically discount genetics.
A) But why are you dismissing social effects, they are clearly strong!
> No, my contention is that a higher fraction of one sex thinks that healing sick animals as a career attracts them.
Presumably following on from the assumption that women are genetically programmed to be more nurturing than men.
There has been a huge shift in the typical Dads engagement with their children over a very short period of time. There has been no corresponding shift in genetics, these changes are purely societal. For me this really calls into question many of the old assumptions about genetically assigned roles.
So it’s not the science that they don’t want to do. It’s the environment that they don’t want to be in.
I know lots of women in marketing; building websites and coding apps.
I don’t spend all day in front of an LCD programming. That’s just one aspect of my job.
The environment is heavily influenced and pretty much created by the people who inhabit it. Mainly men in a male dominated environment and women in a female dominated environment.
The link between behaviour, personality and genetics is something that is studied quite a bit by psychologists.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201509/what-behavio...
the main thing is that as sentient beings we can recognise and alter our behaviour.
> the main thing is that as sentient beings we can recognise and alter our behaviour.
Did anyone claim we can't?
> Presumably following on from the assumption that women are genetically programmed to be more nurturing than men.
No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just trying to *interpret* the fact that lots of women with good grades opt for veterinary science whereas fewer women with good grades opt for engineering.
Now it could be biases in those professions; or it could be what tends to interest women (or a mixture of both).
> Did anyone claim we can't?
Yep. The original OP claimed we can never get better than 20% women in CS.
> The original OP claimed we can never get better than 20% women in CS.
In that article he said it was not *likely*, and in the context of the article -- written from the point of view of a comp sci dept -- it was assuming that wider society would be much as now.
To a large extent, the article was asking what a comp sci dept can do and how well a comp sci dept can do, given wider society (which an individual university dept can't do much to change on its own). After all, that is the question that such depts get asked and that is what things like Athena SWAN are all about.
> Now it could be biases in those professions; or it could be what tends to interest women (or a mixture of both).
I'd agree that men and women are different it's just that I believe that by far the greater proportion of those differences stem from societal influence over innate behavioural programming.
An 80/20 gender split in areas such as career or degree choice seems wholly artificial.
I would hope that Univerisities don’t exisit in isolation to the local community at large. That they’re creating links with local businesses and schools.
Sitting back, shrugging shoulders and saying “it’s a fair cop, guv, society’s to blame” won’t change anything.
> Sitting back, shrugging shoulders and saying “it’s a fair cop, guv, society’s to blame” won’t change anything.
>
Have you actually read the link? An excerpt,
"I have been a champion of using undergraduate TAs in introductory programming classes. I set up undergraduate TA programs at Stanford and Arizona that continue to this day and we have a thriving program at UW. I was co-author of an IEEE article entitled, “Broadening Participation: The Why and the How.” My work with introductory courses and undergraduate TAs factored into the selection in 2015 of UW as the inaugural winner of the Excellence in Promoting Women in Undergraduate Computing prize awarded by NCWIT (the National Center for Women & Information Technology)."
> I would hope that Univerisities don’t exisit in isolation to the local community at large. That they’re creating links with local businesses and schools.
Agreed, and most university depts put efforts into that. But, it doesn't really help an individual department, since only about 15% of students stay local in their choice of university. Most students see it as an opportunity to fly the nest and live somewhere else for a while.
So, if a department puts efforts into science workshops for 13-yr-old girls in local schools, it might be a good thing to do in its own right, but it doesn't really budge the stats for intake sex ratio at *that* department.
> Sitting back, shrugging shoulders and saying “it’s a fair cop, guv, society’s to blame” won’t change anything.
Agreed, but is anyone advocating that? If you read the article linked to in the OP, he's active and fully supportive of outreach efforts.
> I believe that by far the greater proportion of those differences stem from societal influence over innate behavioural programming.
Twin studies tells us that, as a rule of thumb, the variation in such traits is typically 50:50. Both environmental/social and genetic factors are roughly equally important.
Yes, this is counter to common opinion, which does tend to discount the role of genetics, but the hard evidence is that common opinion is wrong on this.
Are you saying difference in between twins preferences and personalities are 50:50? If so, fine, but that is very different from suggesting any difference in male/female preferences is also like this.
You seem to be completely ignoring the repeatedly made point that CS has historically not been 80:20 but much more equal, even biased towards women.
> Twin studies tells us that, as a rule of thumb, the variation in such traits is typically 50:50. Both environmental/social and genetic factors are roughly equally important.
> Yes, this is counter to common opinion, which does tend to discount the role of genetics, but the hard evidence is that common opinion is wrong on this.
Not only is this counter to common opinion, it's counter to common sense and common place observations on gender changes in the workplace. 50 years ago women doctors and lawyers were a rarity, now slightly more women graduate in both fields and yet you insist environmental/social and genetic share equal responsibility for career choices? To put it bluntly ...My Arse!
Link to the studies?
In the early 80s I was at an all boys school. Probably 4 of us could type. The computer geeks. Typing was for girls.
I wonder what the percentage of men v women can type now...
> Not only is this counter to common opinion, it's counter to common sense and common place observations on gender changes in the workplace.
You're assuming that roughly equal -- on average -- influences from environment and genes leads to outcomes that have the same proportion. That's not true. Of course there are examples where social factors dominate. If society has a rule "women can't do X" and another doesn't, then of course that rule is then the biggest factor.
But, that's not really what I'm discussing. All along I'm discussing what would happen in a hypothetical, perfect, un-baised society, where career choices then came down to people's free choice about what interests them. I suspect that genetic differences would play a large role in how someone chose.
> You seem to be completely ignoring the repeatedly made point that CS has historically not been 80:20 but much more equal, even biased towards women.
>
Well, one possibility is that this is because other choices have become more available to women which may play better to their relative skills. As the article points out, womens' aptitude for STEM subjects is equal or better than mens'. However, they seem to do better at verbal (and caring).
So, as options such as medicine became more available more women opted for them?
> You seem to be completely ignoring the repeatedly made point that CS has historically not been 80:20 but much more equal, even biased towards women.
Not at all. I've never denied that societal factors can be hugely influential. Again, I'm asking about what the *natural* ratio would be in a hypothetical unbiased society.
And again, why is is that the claim "both environment and genetics have strong roles" always gets interpreted as "only genetics has a strong role"?
Why is it that "in this situation, environment is clearly important" gets presented as a refutation of "both environment and genetics have strong roles"?
> Why is it that "in this situation, environment is clearly important" gets presented as a refutation of "both environment and genetics have strong roles"?
In this instance because the essay you linked is obviously bollocks. It is entirely possible to have more than 20% females in CS. We know this because it used to be the case.
> Not at all. I've never denied that societal factors can be hugely influential. Again, I'm asking about what the *natural* ratio would be in a hypothetical unbiased society.
As society has become less gender biased we're starting to find out. Many fields that were once regarded as entirely unsuited to women are turning out to be emminently suitable.
> And again, why is is that the claim "both environment and genetics have strong roles" always gets interpreted as "only genetics has a strong role"?
That isn't my interpretation. I just think that the role of genetics (outside of careers demanding physical strength) has long been massively overstated and is nowhere near your suggestion of 50/50.
> Why is it that "in this situation, environment is clearly important" gets presented as a refutation of "both environment and genetics have strong roles"?
Because the huge expansion of women into traditionally male dominated spheres over a very recent time period would indicate that the importance of genetics has long been overstated.
Edit:typo.
By the way, on conceptual fallacies. The statement:
"The difference in the sex ratio being 20:80 in Country A in 2005 and being 50:50 in Country B in 1985 is clearly down to social factors"
... is quite obviously true (there will be little difference in genetics in those two comparisons).
But, from that, it simply does not follow that:
"The 20:80 disparity between the sexes in Country A in 2005 is clearly down to social factors".
That's an entirely separate question and needs to be considered afresh. After all, there *are* systematic genetic differences between the two groups being considered, whereas in the previous comparison there weren't.
What is the purpose of looking at a ‘hypothetical unbiased society’?
Of course if the society was unbiased then nothing would be biased by societal pressures.
Society is not biased and so you can’t separate the two
> In this instance because the essay you linked is obviously bollocks. It is entirely possible to have more than 20% females in CS. We know this because it used to be the case.
Talk about taking the least charitable interpretation possible of what he said!
In saying what he thought was *likely* (he didn't say not possible) he was of course making assumptions about how society would be.
Of course it's possible to have 50:50 parity in CS admissions. All you need is a government that passes a law telling CS depts not to admit more men than women! Easy!
But the suggestion by Reges was that -- in Western countries where people have an open and wide choice of life-style and career options, and can pursue what interests them and can be confident of the financial security to do that -- that we are unlikely to have parity. That middle bit is crucial to what he was saying.
> What is the purpose of looking at a ‘hypothetical unbiased society’?
I'm asking whether we should "aim for" sex ratios of 50:50 in everything. Or, should we aim instead for an unbiased society (with not necessarily taking departure from 50:50 as indicative of bias).
There seems to be a mix of the use of genetics and gender in this thread from all parties. There seems to be a lot of "boys like this/girls like that" style comments that point to a binary situation, whereas preferences/abilities across a gender are variable and as societal pressures change, we might be seeing people able to follow their own preferences, as opposed to the preferences assigned to them by society.
I find it a fascinating topic and agree that the splitting of genetic, gender and societal influences in any research is problematic. As the father of two daughters, both who looked reasonably gender neutral as babies/toddlers (lack of hair, we aren't really into pink and blue etc), they were treated very differently depending which gender they were assumed to be.
> But the suggestion by Reges was that -- in Western countries where people have an open and wide choice of life-style and career options, and can pursue what interests them and can be confident of the financial security to do that -- that we are unlikely to have parity. That middle bit is crucial to what he was saying.
If you added, "in which society explicitly and implicitly implies what you should aspire to be in life throughout your formative years" I think you might be on to something......
> In this instance because the essay you linked is obviously bollocks.
Really? There's a hell of a lot in that essay. Even if 80/20 is incorrect, to simply say the essay is bollocks points to how (and I can find no better way of putting this) f*cked up the diversity and equality debate is.
> Twin studies tells us that, as a rule of thumb, the variation in such traits is typically 50:50. Both environmental/social and genetic factors are roughly equally important.
Yes, you can use that to predict outcomes at an individual level and that's very powerful. But at group level it breaks down and is not stastically significant.
> Yes, this is counter to common opinion, which does tend to discount the role of genetics, but the hard evidence is that common opinion is wrong on this.
The problem is that twin studies can only explain the variation between individuals, not between groups.
For example, a properly run twin study can tell you with a high degree of confidence, for ex, that people born with gene A are more likely to go in profession B.
However, it is simply incorrect to use that as an explanatory statement about the prevalence of gene A in profession B. And even more incorrect to deduce causal relationship.
Unfortunately this is a very common mistake to make.
The reality is there there isn't any evidence as to how much of the gender gap at group level is nature vs nurture on things like job/career outcomes. the sample sizes required to test it are too big.
However on a case by case basis it can be easy to disprove the influence of genes above a threshold. It's on of those thing where proving something is false is much easier than proving it's true.
> The problem is that twin studies can only explain the variation between individuals, not between groups.
Twin studies are a method for partitioning variance, normally for the purpose of estimating heritability. They are used to describe population level characteristics and are nothing do do with trying to identify causal genes or differences between groups (or individuals).
They are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion as you cannot separate the shared environment effects of gender from the biological differences. I'm not sure if 'genetic' is even the correct term to use when referring to 'innate' gender differences.
> >> If there isn't a male/female bias the split would be closer to 50/50, no?
> No, not by definition. That would presume that the natural ratio is always 50:50, such that deviation from that must be caused by bias in the profession.
Well yes but the premise of his question is that there isn't any bias.
> Twin studies are a method for partitioning variance, normally for the purpose of estimating heritability. They are used to describe population level characteristics and are nothing do do with trying to identify causal genes or differences between groups (or individuals).
Well exactly, but believe it or not the internet is full of people who claim that twin studies explain outcomes differences between men/women...
> A) Adopts general presumption that everything is social, and that genetics are irrelevant.
Or, from a slightly different perspective, adopts the general presumption "men are bad and women are weak", a profoundly anti-human position.
> Well exactly, but believe it or not the internet is full of people who claim that twin studies explain outcomes differences between men/women...
I'm not sure that anyone here has done that explicitly. There is, however, a tendency for people to dismiss genetic variance when discussing behavioural or personality trait variation in a way that they are much less likely to do with morphological differences. In that sense it is worth making the point that these traits often have very high heritabilities, even if that doesn't directly relate to gender.
It is also worth making the converse point. i.e. that all of the problems that make identifying innate gender differences difficult, make it just as hard to identify environmental differences. That is probably a lesson that some people here could do with acknowledging. Simply pointing to variation in gender differences in different populations is not adequate.
Some overall comment in an attempt to clarify:
There are of course huge social affects on sex ratios, and these often dominate. In a society that says "women may not do X" any genetic variation is pretty irrelevant.
But the whole question is, what happens as we move towards a better, unbiased society? (Which is what we all want, and which is the direction we're surely headed, even if one thinks that we've a long way to go.)
If you think that genetics plays no role then, as societal bias is progressively removed, the outcome will head towards 50:50 parity.
But, this "genetics plays no role" idea is wrong. And, as we progressively remove societal bias, genetics will become a bigger part of what is left, and so will come to dominate the resulting ratio.
That's a necessary conclusion. Even if you think that genetic effects are much less than societal ones, if we do manage to even out all societal biases, such that societal effects on sex ratios become zero, then sex ratios deriving from people's choices will become dominated by any systematic genetic differences.
That's inevitable unless either (1) genetic effects are always negligible (which is refuted by twin studies), or (2) we don't aim for an unbiased society, we aim for a societal bias that exactly counters any systematic genetic differences (some might want to do that).
So, as we progressively make society fairer and better, innate, genetic and natural differences between different groups will come to the fore. (That conclusion is perhaps counter-intuitive, but it's basic logic.) That's why it's legitimate to ask, as I am doing, what effects such innate differences have.
Strikes me as a fair question to ask, but it does beg the question of how do the somewhat arbitrary course/career sector boundaries align with genetic differences ? So you could postulate, for instance, that empathy is a genetic trait where women are stronger than men - but the need for empathy spans most activities. So establishing genetic difference (say empathy) still doesn't establish a reason for disparity in specific courses/careers.
The impact of empathy as a trait is likely to be too infinitely debatable. I'd expect pregnancy, and all the drivers that go with it, would have a more profound and measurable effect on career and life interests in women.
One of the criticisms of modern feminism has been its desire to disregard aspects of motherhood, presumably as traditional parenting roles are seen as conservative values and oppressive. Strikes me that in wanting to eliminate possible prejudices we intentionally try to ignore some pretty self-evident differences between males and females.
> No one uses column inches complaining about the lower numbers of men in nurseries, dental nurses, hair salons, mid wifes etc..
Which is a shame in my opinion. These debates always seem to focus on how to get women into traditionally male dominated jobs - why is that? Why are we not worrying about getting men into female dominated fields? There seems to be an inherent sexism within society where we still consider jobs that are mostly done by women to be low status, whereas traditionally male jobs are considered to be higher status.
> Which is a shame in my opinion. These debates always seem to focus on how to get women into traditionally male dominated jobs - why is that? Why are we not worrying about getting men into female dominated fields? There seems to be an inherent sexism within society where we still consider jobs that are mostly done by women to be low status, whereas traditionally male jobs are considered to be higher status.
What is the % of female primary school teachers to male primary school teachers? Primary school teacher not exactly a "low status".
It is odd, as you say public perception.. But then you have celebrity status male hairdressers or chefs.. who are lauded etc..
If more men found employment in predominantly female sectors, it would free up jobs for the opposite too. Everyone gets the job they enjoy, not the one society perceived they should take.
Rare to make the news, but I saved this one from a while back.
> So, as we progressively make society fairer and better, innate, genetic and natural differences between different groups will come to the fore. (That conclusion is perhaps counter-intuitive, but it's basic logic.) That's why it's legitimate to ask, as I am doing, what effects such innate differences have.
That is not necessarily true, this will be the case only of those genetic differences actually have any sort of significant impact on the group differences of social outcomes. Which is compeltely unproven in most of the cases discussed here (you can't show that with a twin study)
The problem lies is proving causation, I could probably show that there is a smaller proportion of people with small feet working in tech, than of people with big feet (given that there are less women in tech, and, on average, they have smaller feet).
But it would be ridiculous to go on claiming that I have statistical evidence that women don't go to tech jobs simply because they are born, on average, with smaller feet
A lot of these claims rest on exactly the same spurious correlations (women are on average better at caring so they prefer this or prefer that, therefore it explains a natural gap etc etc, you get the gist), it just sounds more credible than my feet story because it runs along a familiar trope, but it is just as unscientific and fallacious.
> Or, perhaps most likely, it could be some mixture of both of these. And it seems to me that, if we have uni depts and similar being accredited over such issues, then we really need to consider what the "natural" ratio actually would be. We can't just assume that it "should be" 50:50.
I agree with what you have said here. However, it's pretty much impossible to sort out the genetic component from the social component. And of course, as a scientist, you know that being humans, of course we can't know how our views are affected by our own biases. So your own ideas about what a 'natural' ration might be, or how much of the issue is caused by genetics v. social issues is not something that you can trust without robust evidence.
And like you have already said, both are more or less outside of the power of your department to do anything about.
I don't think it is actually about ever getting a 50:50 ration, but rather a political agenda of being seen to do the 'right' thing. So that within your department, it is seen that the different ratio is noticed, and that strategies to address it are documented. In some ways, it simply doesn't matter if the ratio *isn't* 50:50, as long as politically, the department can show all the things that it has done to change this. What they actually want is a list of actions that they can use to be blameless, that they can point to whenever the ratio comes up.
Did you ever read that interesting thing about the orchestra auditions? http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind...
Perhaps low status was the wrong phasing but I wouldn't describe primary school teaching as a high status job.
I think I've read that before but it's really interesting. I've never been sure why there isn't more gender and name blind recruitment generally, at least at the application/CV stage. Seems like an easy way to reduce at least a little unconscious (or conscious) bias.
You’re not wrong - that’s how it started. The self evaluation documents seemed to consistently flag up issues with other groups (for example, working class males, Muslims of any gender and so on ) so the principles were expanded.
> What is the % of female primary school teachers to male primary school teachers? Primary school teacher not exactly a "low status".
I would argue it is low status for a graduate (post-graduate) profession. Lower status than secondary, which tends to have considerably more opportunities for advancement and isn’t female dominated in the way that primary is.
> If more men found employment in predominantly female sectors, it would free up jobs for the opposite too. Everyone gets the job they enjoy, not the one society perceived they should take.
Are we not missing something fundamentally here?
I honestly do not know a single person who wouldn’t attempt to lead the career they want rather than the career society perceives they should take. I have two daughters, one is about to start studying to be an Astro-physicist and then wants to join the army as a captain and the other wants to join the army as a captain and choose a discipline then.
Does anybody know of anyone who wanted to do something but didn’t because of “society’s perception “?
> It is also worth making the converse point. i.e. that all of the problems that make identifying innate gender differences difficult, make it just as hard to identify environmental differences. That is probably a lesson that some people here could do with acknowledging. Simply pointing to variation in gender differences in different populations is not adequate.
I think that the converse point is actually a lot easier to evidence, that is because you can compare the same variable.
Say for example I'm studying the gender gap between 2010 and 2018, and I find a 10% difference between the two samples.
The chance that this variation is the result of innate differences being distributed unequally between my two samples by pure chance is extremely small (provided you have done a proper job with the sample of course)
However to work your way up from statistical evidence of gender specific traits, to proving causation of group differences, that's a lot harder to do.
I think it is highly likely that many women who were brought up more traditionally wouldn't believe they were capable of becoming a computer programmer (for example). Many men who were brought up in an old fashioned way might not choose a female dominated job because other men would call them sissy and similar.
I can think of 3 different examples of cultural reference to boys/men doing ballet and the name calling they suffered.
I would suggest that going into the military for a woman is reasonably main stream.
Far more so than CS which is what these topics tend to focus on, where women are clearly underrepresented .
> Does anybody know of anyone who wanted to do something but didn’t because of “society’s perception “?
I think that pretty much describes all the career advice we had at school. Aim low and don't push above your station was the message we were given. I know people who were flat out told that their aspirations to be doctors, lawyers or start their own business etc were ridiculous. It took a hard nosed attitude to push against the expectations.
> I honestly do not know a single person who wouldn’t attempt to lead the career they want
That's the problem; what people 'want' is strongly influenced by social pressures.
> I would suggest that going into the military for a woman is reasonably main stream.
You might want to look up the percentage of female officers then
You had some pretty shit career advisors then! That certainly isn’t the case now.
> > I honestly do not know a single person who wouldn’t attempt to lead the career they want
> That's the problem; what people 'want' is strongly influenced by social pressures.
You’re deliberately missing my point I think.
> I think it is highly likely that many women who were brought up more traditionally wouldn't believe they were capable of becoming a computer programmer (for example).
There’s nothing “untraditional” about the way we brought up our kids! Society has influenced them into believing they can do whatever they choose for a career.
> Say for example I'm studying the gender gap between 2010 and 2018, and I find a 10% difference between the two samples.
> The chance that this variation is the result of innate differences being distributed unequally between my two samples by pure chance is extremely small (provided you have done a proper job with the sample of course)
Which is all very well if you are interested in what factors caused the differences between 2010 and 2018. What you cannot do (from that data) is conclude anything from this about the magnitude (or indeed existence) of any innate differences separated from social effects. We are generally interested in whether or not we are presenting a level playing field here and now, and if not, what we should change.
For example, if you were to study gender ratios in the presidential bodyguard of the Libyan president in 1970 compared to 1990, you would probably notice that there were strong and opposing biases. You would (correctly) conclude from that that variation in social factors between the two periods likely explained most or all of the observed biases. It would be a fallacy to further conclude that this meant that in the absence of these factors, males and females are equally likely to want to be bodyguards. It may be true, but you haven't shown it.
How many school kids are influenced by dark age teachers on their exam options choice? The same for family and parents?
Then add in peer pressure, for A levels, Uni. Yes some do it their own way, I'm sure many follow the crowd too.
I'm sure many think they are deciding for themselves, but they've had their view point conditioned through 11 or 13 years of education, where boys and girls are treated differently.
I doubt it.
> There’s nothing “untraditional” about the way we brought up our kids! Society has influenced them into believing they can do whatever they choose for a career.
Hardly look at UK school uniform obsession. Boys trousers and rugged shoes, girls a skirt and dainty shoes... separate sports lesson for boys and girls and so forth. They have been treated differently since they were 5.
I think that might very well depend upon the school one goes too
> > Does anybody know of anyone who wanted to do something but didn’t because of “society’s perception “?
> I think that pretty much describes all the career advice we had at school. Aim low and don't push above your station was the message we were given.
From my Comp. in the 80s less than 10% went for A levels and absolutely no mention of university. There were no staff who inspired children to achieve, it was basically churning out factory workers fodder. Fortunately I left and did A levels at college instead, but sadly thousands of kids had any motivation sucked out of them.
A few questions on the OP. When did the balance of female coders to male coders change was it in the early eighties? This was the time when the likes of ZX spectrums, Commodores etc became popular for gaming and many young men became amateur coders and hence went on to be professionals - i.e. it was the birth of home computers that made the change. Were females as interested in these early home computers and gaming as their male counterparts? Is initial interest in CS today stimulated through gaming?
CS is a relatively new science subject, but also a rapidly changing one and perhaps the employment ratios and fluctuations may partially due to the above. Some would say this was due to social conditioning on the males but some might suggest more males are genetically more switched on to competivity and hence gaming. May the nature/nurture argument rumble on,
> Which is all very well if you are interested in what factors caused the differences between 2010 and 2018. What you cannot do (from that data) is conclude anything from this about the magnitude (or indeed existence) of any innate differences separated from social effects.
Yes, but you can use that to dismiss claims that parity can never be achieved because of fundamental innate difference when the data shows large historical or geographical variations caused by the environment.
> For example, if you were to study gender ratios in the presidential bodyguard of the Libyan president in 1970 compared to 1990, you would probably notice that there were strong and opposing biases. You would (correctly) conclude from that that variation in social factors between the two periods likely explained most or all of the observed biases. It would be a fallacy to further conclude that this meant that in the absence of these factors, males and females are equally likely to want to be bodyguards. It may be true, but you haven't shown it.
Although you are addressing something that wasn't mentionned, this is absolutely correct, but I am not making any such conclusion, on the contrary.
> Yes, but you can use that to dismiss claims that parity can never be achieved because of fundamental innate difference when the data shows large historical or geographical variations caused by the environment.
OK, but again, I don't think that anyone has claimed otherwise. As Coel pointed out earlier achieving gender parity in any field could be achieved instantaneously with the appropriate intervention. The important question is whether parity can be achieved equitably and whether it is something that we should be aiming to achieve.
> OK, but again, I don't think that anyone has claimed otherwise.
Well yes, Coel says there is evidence from twin studies that this is 50:50, he quotes an article that says we can't do better than 20%, Postmanpat says there are less women in tech because they are better at "verbal" and "caring", etc etc etc ...
All of this is fallacies, bad reasoning, and familiar tropes.
Science = statistically significant.
> As Coel pointed out earlier achieving gender parity in any field could be achieved instantaneously with the appropriate intervention. The important question is whether parity can be achieved equitably and whether it is something that we should be aiming to achieve.
Well I think it has to be again evidence based, there is strong evidence that diverse groups, generally speaking, tend to outperform homogenous groups.
In that regards maximising diversity seem to be a good idea. And I suspect the main driver behind the diversity agenda is in fact economic.
Of course if you are in the majority group this may seem unfair at first as essentially the minority group will be prioritised. However this may be short sighted, as even the groups currently in the majority could potentially benefit from the opportunistic effect of a more varied workforce.
My argument in favour of the diversity agenda is therefore not based on a political claim that everybody is equal and should be treated the same.
On the contrary, it recognises that we are quite different, for various unquantifiable reasons (innate or environmental), and that we can create value out of these, and eventually benefit from it. It's a self interested argument of sorts .
> Of course if you are in the majority group this may seem unfair at first as essentially the minority group will be prioritised. However this may be short sighted, as even the groups currently in the majority could potentially benefit from the opportunistic effect of a more varied workforce.
In other words, you are are anti equality, but pro diversity.
> In other words, you are are anti equality, but pro diversity.
I am pro equality in rights. "All human are born free and equal in rights" I think Jefferson and Lafayette got it right with that one. The equality warriors would be better off focusing on that.
For the rest, I don't really care, if equality occurs, fine, if not, never mind.
And yes, pro-diversity purely for pragmatic reasons.
> Well I think it has to be again evidence based, there is strong evidence that diverse groups, generally speaking, tend to outperform homogenous groups.
That can only be true if there are systematic differences between how men and women tend to think and the attitudes they tend to have. If there weren't, then having male/female diversity would not affect outcomes.
> In that regards maximising diversity seem to be a good idea. And I suspect the main driver behind the diversity agenda is in fact economic.
And anyone arguing that must hold that men and women tend to have different attitudes. Which means that anyone arguing that would not expect that free choice in an unbiased society would lead to gender parity in all professions.
That doesn't follow at all. The benefits of diversity could well (probably do to a large extent) stem from different social effects such as upbringing, education, culture etc.
Out of interest what is it? I would put the military down as being pretty diverse compared with alot of other areas.
I have 2 daughters. One did CS- about 5% of students were women. Other daughter will be doing a Maths degree - seems to be about about a 50/50 split.
As an outside observer CS does appear have an issue. And from what I know its got less diverse in the last 5 years.
And if Maths can get almost a 50/50 split, I can see no reason for CS not being in the same category.
> The benefits of diversity could well (probably do to a large extent) stem from different social effects such as upbringing, education, culture etc.
Well maybe, but if that were the underlying attitude then people would be just as concerned with class diversity, economic-status diversity and viewpoint diversity. But they're not, indeed viewpoint diversity is one thing that is definitely *not* wanted, and indeed actively deplored.
> Well maybe, but if that were the underlying attitude then people would be just as concerned with class diversity, economic-status diversity and viewpoint diversity. But they're not, indeed viewpoint diversity is one thing that is definitely *not* wanted, and indeed actively deplored.
Rubbish. There are extensive "outreach" efforts to get those who might not attend university because of background to go.
Only 10% according to recent stats. Yet the Army is in the top 50 female employers!
I suppose the advantage is that it is changing and women have always been in the military from all sorts of backgrounds and with a variety of options.
> What is the % of female primary school teachers to male primary school teachers? Primary school teacher not exactly a "low status".
But any male who does become a primary school teacher is more likely to have it inferred that he is either "girly" or a pervert - and that suggestion is more likely to come from the children's mothers or women in general.
When I was at primary school the mix was roughly 50:50, but now it's gone majorly female - end result; young boys think education is a "girls thing", so boys are doing less well in education.
A major reason that males and females tend to isolate into different occupations is down to their parents views, and a lot of this comes from their MOTHERS.
> Well maybe, but if that were the underlying attitude then people would be just as concerned with class diversity, economic-status diversity and viewpoint diversity. But they're not, indeed viewpoint diversity is one thing that is definitely *not* wanted, and indeed actively deplored.
I'm amazed people are continuing to talk about James Damore as if he has anything useful to say. Not only does he have some very outdated views about gender in general, but he has a very narrow view of what being a software engineer is really about. The posted article seems to share that as well.
Are you sure you read the same memo?
> I'm amazed people are continuing to talk about James Damore as if he has anything useful to say.
The notable thing about the Damore affair isn't so much what he said, it's the fact that a good-faith attempt to discuss the issues was treated as so heretical as to be unacceptable and a sacking offence.
> Not only does he have some very outdated views about gender in general, but he has a very narrow view of what being a software engineer is really about. The posted article seems to share that as well.
Rather incongruous to say that in a comment explaining how much you value viewpoint diversity?
> That can only be true if there are systematic differences between how men and women tend to think and the attitudes they tend to have. If there weren't, then having male/female diversity would not affect outcomes.
I agree fully. I just don't attempt to make a claims about the origin of those differences.
> And anyone arguing that must hold that men and women tend to have different attitudes. Which means that anyone arguing that would not expect that free choice in an unbiased society would lead to gender parity in all professions.
Yes, I agree, as I've said, it's a position that fully recognises there are differences, but without making frankly fallacious/spurious/unscientific claims about their origin.
What I really disagree with conceptually is that there is some sort of "natural" ratio we would converge to as society becomes "unbiased". It doesn't make sense to me because there isn't such a thing, almost by definition, as an unbiased society. Any kind of society or even just culture, is a form of "bias".
> What I really disagree with conceptually is that there is some sort of "natural" ratio we would converge to as society becomes "unbiased". It doesn't make sense to me because there isn't such a thing, almost by definition, as an unbiased society. Any kind of society or even just culture, is a form of "bias".
So you don't think we can have a society in which there is no bias pushing women versus men towards or away from certain professions?
Well, maybe not, but it's what things like Athena SWAN ask us to aim for, and it seems worthwhile to consider the concept as a thought experiment and to ask what the outcome would then be.
> So you don't think we can have a society in which there is no bias pushing women versus men towards or away from certain professions?
I don't know, I am just pointing out that there is no society without group behaviour, and group behaviour by definition is a bias from the "natural" individual behaviour (if there even is such a thing).
So this idea that society can be "unbiased" seems illogical to me, society, by its very definition, will be biased, the question is how.
> Well, maybe not, but it's what things like Athena SWAN ask us to aim for, and it seems worthwhile to consider the concept as a thought experiment and to ask what the outcome would then be.
Is it ? It seems to me their aim is just to increase gender diversity, because, presumably, they have worked out that this is in the public interest.
Whether they are correct in that assessment is the real interesting question, if they are, I don't see what's the problem.
> Is it ? It seems to me their aim is just to increase gender diversity, ...
Well no, that's not how they operate. Their "accreditation" methodology is about getting a department to examine itself, look for overt or hidden bases that might act against one sex or another, and then root out those biases.
In other words, their accreditation process asks us to aim for the sort of unbiased institution that you doubt can exist.
If you don't like my "thought experiment" of an unbiased society, I can phrase the question in a different way. Suppose we engaged properly and repeatedly with Athena SWAN accreditation, and over successive cycles did do our best to produce a level playing field and unbiased institution, what would the sex ratio then likely be?
> ... because, presumably, they have worked out that this is in the public interest.
It's not them who work out whether or not this is in the public interest, the agenda is set by the funding providers.
Some women are a pain in the rear when it comes to equality
It's bizarre that certain women scupper girls ambitions and as you say are suspicious of men in "womens" jobs.
I don't understand it, but I've certainly observed it.
> Well no, that's not how they operate. Their "accreditation" methodology is about getting a department to examine itself, look for overt or hidden bases that might act against one sex or another, and then root out those biases.
Ok, fine, but I fail to see where is the harm in that ?
> If you don't like my "thought experiment" of an unbiased society, I can phrase the question in a different way. Suppose we engaged properly and repeatedly with Athena SWAN accreditation, and over successive cycles did do our best to produce a level playing field and unbiased institution, what would the sex ratio then likely be?
How would I know ? And why does it even matter ? If there is evidence to show that having a more balanced ratio of men/women in an university or company is good for productivity and produces better result, then it makes sense to to take steps to try to reach that ideal mix.
That is the thing that gets me about the Damore case. Not so much what he said (of which I see nothing wrong either in content or in tone, at the very least given it was a document for discussion), but the reaction to it. He lost his job. He is rendered unemployable. He is labelled an outright sexist dinosaur. All for providing feedback (which was requested) and then seeking comment on his feedback.
The reaction, and the view that all which happened to him subsequently is justified, appears to be based entirely on an ideological viewpoint that those holding his viewpoints should be sacked.
You don't need the government to censor speech if you can render someone economically unviable on account of what they say.
I'm sure those so critical of Damore would be horrified if protected minorities were rendered unemployable for their stances or characteristics.
> Ok, fine, but I fail to see where is the harm in that ?
Did anyone say there was harm in that? The possible "harm" is if one gets judged against a preferred sex ratio 50:50, if that ratio is inappropriate.
> If there is evidence to show that having a more balanced ratio of men/women in an university or company is good for productivity and produces better result, ...
And is there?
> ... then it makes sense to to take steps to try to reach that ideal mix.
So what is the idea mix, and what is the evidence for that? And how much societal engineering, over-ruling free choice, are you willing to do to attain that ideal mix?
> If there is evidence to show that having a more balanced ratio of men/women in an university or company is good for productivity and produces better result, . . .
This, by the way, is something one can argue about at length, and on which there are conflicting opinions (as well as many ideology-based opinions). E.g.:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-rea...
"Many commentators suggest that gender diversity in the corporate boardroom improves company performance because of the different points of view and experience it offers. However, rigorous, peer-reviewed academic research paints a different picture. Despite the intuitive appeal of the argument that gender diversity on the board improves company performance, research suggests otherwise.
"Results of numerous academic studies of the topic suggest that the presence of more female board members does not much improve — or worsen — a firm’s performance. In this opinion piece, Wharton management professor Katherine Klein summarizes academic research on the topic and discusses the possible reasons and implications for these surprising findings. Klein is also the vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative."
> If there is evidence to show that having a more balanced ratio of men/women in an university or company is good for productivity and produces better result, then it makes sense to to take steps to try to reach that ideal mix.
What is the evidence for that? And more importantly, at what point do you decide bias has been sufficiently eradicated when the benchmark of success seems to be an equality in outcome? Or at what point would you accept that nature is actually decisive in unequal outcomes (ie. being a labourer) and that diversity and inclusion strategies to "fix" this are not only ineffective or inefficient but are active reverse discrimination?
Which then raises a potentially thornier point:
If we view behavioural differences between males and females as primarily learned differences, doesn't this poke a hole in using sex and gender's unique status as "protected characteristics" to support D&I programmes to ensure greater representation of female viewpoints in the workplace?
Put bluntly, it surely isn't more ovaries or testicles (innate characteristics) that D&I programme seek in the workplace, as we seem to be in universal agreement that they are not guides of workplace suitability. What we apparently need is a better balance of female and male mental characteristics.
If those mental characteristics are malleable, then surely they don't qualify as protected (unlike race, gender, or orientation). They are not innate.
Which means they deserve no more preferential treatment than viewpoint or political diversity.
Basically, we appear to be using gender as a poor proxy for something quite different, while extending its innate-ness to something which isn't innate - especially so if you really consider men and women to be equally capable.
Would it not be prudent to seek diversity in, say, the social sciences? Almost 90% of which is progressive/liberal/left-leaning, especially given their central role in producing the evidence and policy that drives diversity and inclusion? Given the feedback loop this creates, surely this is EXACTLY the kind of area that is not only hugely lacking in diversity, but dangerously in need of it, and which appears to have ZERO efforts placed in resolving this disparity.
This is I think why many bristle at the "agenda" of diversity and inclusion. It's entire narrative is dictated by the sector that is hugely lacking in diversity. The terms of reference have been created by itself. Anything which pushes for diversity but conveniently ignores viewpoint diversity (essentially self-criticism) is quite rightly viewed with suspicion. This was exactly the point that Damore was trying to make, which he was hounded out of his job for.
> What is the evidence for that?
I am not saying there systematically is, I am saying, if there is, then that makes sense.
> And more importantly, at what point do you decide bias has been sufficiently eradicated when the benchmark of success seems to be an equality in outcome?
What is this obsession about "eradicating bias". A company of university may have an objective to have a more gender balanced staff, because they think (rightly or wrongly) that it will improve things. They may take steps to encourage women to join and remove toxic behaviour that may put them off.
What is exactly the effing problem with that ?
I am not answering the rest of your post because it is mostly intellectual masturbation on stuff we have no clue about.
While on the topic of viewpoint diversity, here's someone who is refusing to present their views about Brexit on a radio station because that radio station also gives air time to Farage. She thinks it's wrong that he gets such a platform, so wants everyone to boycott it.
OK, but roughly half the nation sided with Farage in the referendum. So this is a call for the Brexit debate to be won by refusing to give the other half of the nation any airplay.
https://twitter.com/cliodiaspora/status/1009875261519745024
https://twitter.com/cliodiaspora/status/1009875272852819968
> I am not saying there systematically is, I am saying, if there is, then that makes sense.
My question exists whether it is systemic or not. If an even balance of men/women is beneficial for a workplace (how you'd measure this I don't know) then I would have little issue with making this an element of recruitment policy.
But if you are going to do so, then you need evidence to support it. Otherwise you are doing little more than implementing institutional bias, that may be no more supported than saying we need more old, white, conservative men in the workplace.
> What is exactly the effing problem with that ?
See answer above.
> I am not answering the rest of your post because it is mostly intellectual masturbation on stuff we have no clue about.
Seemed to me as being a fundamental issue actually.
We specifically exclude "viewpoint" diversity in diversity and inclusion policy.
Yet we actively pursue more staff with "female viewpoints" (under another name of course) by seeking more female staff. This is despite having concluded there is either no such thing (as gender/sex has no impact on thinking) or that such viewpoints are shared equally between males and females.
Perhaps you could answer a more straight-forward question:
What attributes are we specifically seeking when we seek "female" applicants for a role?
From what I can see, all we are recruiting for is vaginas ultimately.
There is strong theoretical grounding on why, he really soaking, more diverse groups perform better.
But, I agree, it may be that gender is a relevant characteristic at all. I am not claiming either way. I don't know.
But at the end of the day leaders/companies/organisation have to do what they think is best.
I think many have recognised that sexist / toxic environment is bad for them, both in terms of reputation and talent retention, and are taking steps to remedy this.
Also many have recognised that the only way to break that mould is to artificially incentivise / prioritise women. In my own experience, this is often true.
I don't really see the problem any way or how it harms me or you.
Beyond that, It may well be that having a better gender balance doesn't actually make any difference, but it may well be that it does. Either way, if a company leadership wants to pursue a 50:50 policy that's their choice and I don't mind.
> What is this obsession about "eradicating bias".
Well suppose a company has 8 males and 1 female, and thinks it would do better if it was more balanced. It advertises for a 10th employee.
As I understand employment law (I'm open to correction) it would still be illegal to prefer a woman over a better-qualified man in appointing that person.
So the only strategy it can adopt is "eradicating bias" that may be causing the imbalance.
> But if you are going to do so, then you need evidence to support it.
You might just try it and see if it works.
> Otherwise you are doing little more than implementing institutional bias, that may be no more supported than saying we need more old, white, conservative men in the workplace.
No, but of course things have to done sensibly, lawfully, and without discriminating on protected characteristics, that much everybody agrees (I hope !). But fundamentally if a company wants to attract more white conservative males then I don't have a problem with it, let them be.
> Well suppose a company has 8 males and 1 female, and thinks it would do better if it was more balanced. It advertises for a 10th employee.
> As I understand employment law (I'm open to correction) it would still be illegal to prefer a woman over a better-qualified man in appointing that person.
Of course, and rightly so. But they can advertise the role differently, be open to different career profiles, etc etc.
For I example, a lot of the time I needed to hire someone, I just went with references. But if 90% of your staff is male, who mostly network/ hang out with males, you end up just hiring more males. And without realising you are shutting yourself out of 50% of the market. Which is bad.
> So the only strategy it can adopt is "eradicating bias" that may be causing the imbalance.
Sure, so they may do that, and it may well be that it won't be enough to achieve that objective, and that's fine.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not surprised by this at all.
It seems to be a substantial human failing, notably now on the left, that alternative viewpoints cannot even be debated. They need silencing and eradication and that those who hold them are in some way lesser humans.
I think this falls in to a point that Zizek made, which I've mentioned here before. That a neo-liberal/market-based economic hegemony (usually associated with the Right) does and can co-exist with a social-progressive hegemony (associated with the Left). There doesn't need to a be a clean left/right split between them, or that the socio-political need align with the economic.
A hegemony naturally (out of momentum, power, or simply as power corrupts) seeks to dominate further. Once it was the Right/conservatism that dominated the social sphere.
Now the Left has social dominance. But maybe because it lacks economic dominance, or perhaps out of historically being in a weaker position, or perhaps because this trait is simply innate to Left thinking (power always seen as malign and belonging to someone else seems central to leftism) it fails to see that it is being hegemonic.
We seem to be ending up with a sort of tyranny of the majority (or near majority). Alternative viewpoints aren't to be debated. They are innately wrong, dangerous, morally indefensible and outside the bounds of what free-speech and debate allows.
I find this terrifying. The self-belief in censorship, in policing language, in codes of allowable (potentially state-enforced) debate. Again, we seemed to see this in the Damore case - he essentially said the emperor wears no clothes, and all the systems which are supposedly in place to protect the child who shouts that out, which he was pointing to, turned against him
Ffs go back to masturbating to your guru Jordan Peterson on YouTube.
Only if you promise to read "451 Fehrenheit" or some Orwell for me.
Or in lieu of that, at least answer my previous question:
"What attributes are we specifically seeking when we seek "female" applicants for a role? "
> Or in lieu of that, at least answer my previous question:
> "What attributes are we specifically seeking when we seek "female" applicants for a role? "
A size D ? Sorry I couldn't resist... go back to YouTube now.
Man or Ball there Rom? I can’t quite see why Pan Rom has raised your hackles so much - but I can see how the descent of an interesting thread into this sort of stuff might generate the ‘hostile environment’ which we are trying to avoid.
> Man or Ball there Rom?
The man. Definitely. He has an history of peddling his radicalisation agenda on these forums. I have no patience with fanatics. Sorry
Believe me Rom, I'm anything but a fanatic. But as a self-identifying lefty, and keen to apply the same levels of criticism to my own side as I am to the right, I do have an interest in any discussion where contentious issues like this come up. It's interesting that the closing down of discussion always seems to come from one side. Tha's a concern.
If we're critiquing diversity and inclusion agendas you have to accept that you can't examine it without also looking at the Left. They are the one's pushing this and all its associated codes of "acceptable behaviour". The nearest equivalent I can come up with on the right that carries the same restrictive doctrine is perhaps the church. But fortunately they don't get to have their say on schools, universities and the workplace these days. And these days I find the Christians more open to debate.
You and a few others on UKC like to tell me that the crap I get uptight about on the left is confined to the fringe left. Yet the treatment of those who question D&I (and that is JUST question....not even anything more strenuous), and the likes of James Damore, is both extreme and comes from far more than fringe activists. It is mainstream left opinion that this discussion can only question certain things.
Claiming I'm fanatical and peddling radicalisation does nothing I'm afraid to reassure me that claims of "bias" and "discrimination" are valid and accurate.
Yes, yes yes you are right I have been now seen the light thank you.
Now, back to YouTube.
I'm scared. I don't know who pan and rom are, but there interaction here gives me pause.
Please ignore.
> The man. Definitely. He has an history of peddling his radicalisation agenda on these forums. I have no patience with fanatics. Sorry
Radicalisation agenda?
UKC is fast becoming a soapbox for a particular political bias and anyone who puts their head above the parapet and says anything different quickly has that head kicked back under it.
I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but he has got a point when he says that open discussion is being curtailed by the very people that say that they're championing free speech, etc.
> Radicalisation agenda?
> UKC is fast becoming a soapbox for a particular political bias and anyone who puts their head above the parapet and says anything different quickly has that head kicked back under it.
Actually I think UKC is quite politically varied. (In terms of those who posts regularly)
> I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but he has got a point when he says that open discussion is being curtailed by the very people that say that they're championing free speech, etc.
Lol, yes, and he's streaming to tens of millions of youtubers, sells books by the shitload, whilst complaining about the discussion being curtailed....
Free speech doesn't mean we have to suffer silently his cult followers' radicalisation agenda. Not least because they are boring.
> Lol, yes, and he's streaming to tens of millions of youtubers, sells books by the shitload, whilst complaining about the discussion being curtailed....
Well yes, the debate is alive and well on alternative venues such as youtube, but as you well know many try to shut it down in venues where they can, including in places such as universities that should be bastions of free discussion of issues.
As an example, of which you're likely aware, in the US a teaching assistant showed a class a clip of Peterson -- one she did not agree with, but she was trying to present both sides of a discussion -- and she was hauled in front of a panel of her seniors who told her that presenting both sides was not acceptable, and that she should teach from an activist perspective, promoting the approved ideology.
> Well yes, the debate is alive and well on alternative venues such as youtube, but as you well know many try to shut it down in venues where they can, including in places such as universities that should be bastions of free discussion of issues.
Peterson worked and lectured in several universities, his giving talks and conferences everywhere around the world, and in fact is probably given a much wider audience in the field than most of his peers.
Free discussion of issues doesn't mean that everybody is forced to discuss his ideas or listen to his crap, universities are not forced to give a megaphone to every self help guru or idiot who comes along.
> Free discussion of issues doesn't mean that everybody is forced to discuss his ideas or listen to his crap, universities are not forced to give a megaphone to every self help guru who comes along.
Why sure. But equally, if they do want to, they should be allowed to. To many nowadays want to control what other people are allowed to discuss.
Hence the phenomena where one group wants to invite and listen to a speaker, and other students then try to prevent it occurring, claiming that the mere presence of someone with views different from theirs makes for a "hostile" and "unsafe" environment.
> Free speech doesn't mean we have to suffer silently his cult followers' radicalisation agenda. Not least because they are boring.
Apologies for going off at a bit of a tangent, but this sort of hysterical reaction to Peterson continues to baffle me. (I'm not singling out Rom, it's quite widespread). Cult? Radicalisation? Masturbators? I've watched an awful lot of JP, and I'm just not seeing it. Most of the political stuff seems to be rather ordinary good sense and a decent dose of interesting political insights, particularly when it comes to totalitarian regimes. Although, I suppose to the hysterics of the radical left, the natural explanation for this is that I'm a Nazi. It sounds a lot like the bleating of adolescents with a victim complex. You know, the people prone to cults, and radicalisation, and... that other one
Anyway, back on track folks.
> Why sure. But equally, if they do want to, they should be allowed to. To many nowadays want to control what other people are allowed to discuss.
So why are you doing exactly that ? University's shouldn't be forced to give time and ressources to every idea or every idiot who comes along, at the expense of others.
> Hence the phenomena where one group wants to invite and listen to a speaker, and other students then try to prevent it occurring, claiming that the mere presence of someone with views different from theirs makes for a "hostile" and "unsafe" environment.
But there will always debate around how universities should spend students time and ressources, and who they give time to. I don't see the problem.
If I asked to give a talk promoting the flat earth theory at your university, I'd probably be told they have better things to do with their precious time and money. And rightly so.
Of course nothing would prevent me from going on YouTube a moan about all the evil universities who are trying to "shut down" freedom of speech, go viral, and make millions selling books.
> . . . this sort of hysterical reaction to Peterson continues to baffle me.
They resent what he is doing. They thought that *they* controlled the narrative, and in many venues they do. But Peterson has managed to bypass that and reach an audience in a new way, using podcasts and the internet. So they resent that he demonstrates that there is a large audience for views out of line with theirs, and they resent that they can't shut him down.
> But there will always debate around how universities should spend students time and ressources, and who they give time to. I don't see the problem.
> If I asked to give a talk promoting the flat earth theory at your university, I'd probably be told they have better things to do with their precious time and money. And rightly so.
Even if the students want to attend such a talk and do so in such numbers to make it viable?
> University's shouldn't be forced to give time and ressources to every idea or every idiot who comes along, at the expense of others.
Did anyone suggest they should?
In the incident I referred to, the teacher of the class *wanted* to and chose to include a clip of his views, regarding it as one view that is present in society, and thus a fair thing to include in a discussion of the issues.
The objection to it from her superiors was that, no, in class one should *not* teach about a spread of viewpoints, one should narrowly promote their one preferred viewpoint.
> Did anyone suggest they should?
> In the incident I referred to, the teacher of the class *wanted* to and chose to include a clip of his views, regarding it as one view that is present in society, and thus a fair thing to include in a discussion of the issues.
> The objection to it from her superiors was that, no, in class one should *not* teach about a spread of viewpoints, one should narrowly promote their one preferred viewpoint.
So all you found to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities is a miserable, banal, incident of disagreement between a teacher and her superiors, of which we probably don't even know the full story.
In the meantime, JP goes around the world giving talks to all sorts of people, universities, is everywhere on YouTube, sells tons of books , his ideas are being debated intensively in public forums including universities.
The reality is that people like JP thrive by portraying themselves as victims of the establishment and jump on every little minor incident as evidence of the conspiracy against him by evil neo-Marxists.
> So all you found to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities is a miserable, banal, incident of disagreement between a teacher and her superiors,
>
Really, is that what you think? That this case is the only evidence?
> Really, is that what you think? That this case is the only evidence?
Pretty much every time there is this discussion, stupid "incidents" like this are fished out as so called evidence of oppression.
In the meantime he's everywhere in the media, discussed everywhere, selling books, giving talks, and teaching at university.
Don't you the disproportion ?
I am stating the obvious, but the real victims of the establishment shutting them down are those you never hear about, not those with millions of YouTube followers.
> So all you found to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities is a miserable, banal, incident of disagreement between a teacher and her superiors, of which we probably don't even know the full story.
You really need to do some reading.
> In the meantime, JP goes around the world giving talks to all sorts of people, universities, is everywhere on YouTube, sells tons of books , his ideas are being debated intensively in public forums including universities.
Good luck mentioning Jordan Peterson in anything other than negative terms on a university. I wouldn't even whisper his name on campus. I'm very careful when bringing him up in conversation. I don't really revel in being considered a deplorable racist alt-right sympathiser for finding Jordan Peterson, of all people, interesting.
> The reality is that people like JP thrive by portraying themselves as victims of the establishment and jump on every little minor incident as evidence of the conspiracy against him by evil neo-Marxists.
I don't think JP exactly portrays himself as a victim. His "Life is tough man, don't look for excuses, sort yourself out" message hardly sounds like a victim narrative to me. Does it to you?
Though if he is being deluged with hate mail, protested against, being labelled an alt-right sympathiser, told he is at physical risk if he speaks on campus, has posters put up around the neighbourhood claiming he is a nazi, etc. etc. etc. wouldn't you perhaps think he might have a right to claim to be a victim? I suspect you would call yourself one in those circumstances.
You are right though - he is thriving. He is thriving because the reaction to him is so out of proportion, so fevered, so ridiculous, that it exposes something rotten. That is why more people than ever before will give him money, buy his books, and attend his lectures. Because he is calling out an absurdity, and that absurdity keeps providing all the evidence he needs of its own existence.
Your argument, that he is the problem, is straight out of Kafka.
The U.Laurier case gets mentioned for very specific reasons.
1. It was ludicrous.
2. If Shepherd hadn't recorded the conversation, it would never have been exposed as such. Still many on the left seem to think her treatment was justified.
3. Those attacking Shepherd referred to her showing a Jordan Peterson clip as potentially being criminal because it violated C-16...which was exactly the point Peterson was warning about...and was exactly the point everyone was saying he was wrong to worry about.
If you think this is isolated, think again. The Damore case showed that. It is mainstream "progressive" thinking, in the UK every bit as much as the US, that Damore should lose his job. That is the environment we live in. That is the thinking Jordan Peterson argues against.
> Pretty much every time there is this discussion, stupid "incidents" like this are fished out as so called evidence of oppression.
>
Forget Peterson for a minute.
You seem to have acknowledged that this particular incident is not the only example to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities. Is it your view the only evidence to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities are "stupid incidents"? And do you think that enough "stupid incidents" don't add up to a trend?
> Forget Peterson for a minute.
> You seem to have acknowledged that this particular incident is not the only example to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities. Is it your view the only evidence to support this idea that freedom of speech is being curtailed in universities are "stupid incidents"? And do you think that enough "stupid incidents" don't add up to a trend?
I think that if you want to find every occurrence of a dispute between a teacher/lecturer and his/her superior on what should be included in class, you'll find endless and countless examples.
And no, I see absolutely no trend of freedom of speech being curtailed, on the contrary it seems that everybody thinks they are entitled to an audience
Well, no, freedom of speech doesn't mean that.
If Anjem Choudary complained of being "shut down" because his propaganda videos are not beamed in classrooms all over the country, and not rolled the red carpet in every university ,you'd be laughing your arse off, and rightly so.
> I don't think JP exactly portrays himself as a victim. His "Life is tough man, don't look for excuses, sort yourself out" message hardly sounds like a victim narrative to me. Does it to you?
Why don't you do that instead of moaning then ? Come on, be a good little soldier, listen to your master.
And yes, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy.
You don't think its worth moaning about a policy and worldview that deems it acceptable to fire people if, when prompted to provide feedback on a workplace programme (say...a diversity and inclusion programme), they provide feedback? Well, specifically, the wrong feedback. The type that doesn't politically align (at least on the surface) with a dominant political orthodoxy but which makes the case for greater inclusion?
That to me seems like a decent thing to get worked up over. Especially in the context of the discussion here about employment exclusion, the benefits of diverse ways of thinking in the workplace, and accepting differing characteristics.
Or is it better to just shut-up about overt policies of exclusion?
Would you not maybe have a few words to say if people started losing their jobs for "behaving like girls" or suggesting greater effectiveness could be gained by changing a D&I policy to be more inclusive.
Or would you not? Perhaps your apparent support for inclusivity in the workplace isn't quite as full or egalitarian as you make out? There have been political systems before where banishing people from the workforce for thinking the wrong way or having the wrong politics was common - are these the kinds of systems you like?
Thank you. I'm not being glib when I say that that's a remarkably concise overview, and it crystallizes my own thoughts. You have done me a service, sir.
> You don't think its worth moaning about a policy and worldview that deems it acceptable to fire people
Yes it is perfectly acceptable to fire people for causing reputational damage to their company.
I don't agree with Google's decision but it is theirs to make. And it probably backfired on them anyway. If they exclude variety of ideas they'll whither and die, others will take their place.
The likes of JP are not shut down, he's everywhere and making millions.
the debate is not shut down, it's everywhere in the media and these forums.
The problem is that you are painting a dystopian picture that doesn't exist, just to push a political agenda.
> Yes it is perfectly acceptable to fire people for causing reputational damage to their company.
Again, Kafkaesque.
Damore was asked to write feedback after attending diversity training. He did so and received no response. He posted the paper on a small in-house discussion group, received feedback from numerous colleagues, and revised. This went on for many weeks. With still no feedback from the trainers he posted his complete paper on a larger in-house forum. It was here that the easy to outrage expressed their outrage and released the paper to the media, which breached google’s own policies. The paper was published on a Saturday, 5 Aug, after all the academic citations were redacted by someone other than Damore. He was fired on Monday, 7 Aug.
Duplicitous to say you don't agree with the decision, but that the decision was right because Damore caused damage to his company and therefore deserved to be sacked. All the hallmarks of show-trial/witch-dunking logic there.
You think we should just be silent about these sorts of policies? Just accept, put up with? Be quiet?
Seems that roughly half of Google's employees and seemingly most of the left think its ok. Given the outrage aimed at Damore, the Google decision seems backed by a substantial proportion of the population. Therefore it seems a valid bellwether of how widespread the desire for censorship is.
> The likes of JP are not shut down, he's everywhere and making millions.
Heard of no-platforming?
> the debate is not shut down, it's everywhere in the media and these forums.
Debate is shut down in universities. These are exactly the places where debate is supposed to happen and is necessary. Debate appears to be shut down in the corporate sector too, if the Google case is anything to go by.
Basically, you face potential sacking if you divert from acceptable discourse-left-thinking. Of course you can still talk. You just have to become self-employed if you want to.
> The problem is that you are painting a dystopian picture that doesn't exist, just to push a political agenda.
What is my political agenda?
Ffs, Damore wasn't censored, if anything, he was widely published beyond what he could ever have expected.
You could even argue that his downfall was not that the debate was being shut down, on the contrary, it is because the debate is so hysterical and loud.
What happened to him is not the result of freedom of speech being curtailed, it's the opposite, everything you say or do is blown over a thousand times by legions of internet trolls.
What is your evidence that debate in universities is "shut down" ?
> Ffs, Damore wasn't censored, if anything, he was widely published beyond what he could ever have expected.
Errr, I'll throw that FFS right back at you.
What part of being fired, of having an entire institution the size of Google turn against you, where presumably if he had given "correct" viewpoints in his feedback none of this would have happened....isn't censorship by your definition?
I've mentioned this here before, and I'll mention it again here now, as you seem to be missing a fundamental element of what censorship is: you don't need to be thrown in prison, tortured or executed, to be censored. Just knowing your livelihood, your ability to put food on a plate, is jeopardised by responding to solicited input with a politically-incorrect response, is censorship. That's how the citizens of Eastern Bloc countries were treated...interesting that this still seems acceptable to modern lefties.
I would have thought, given how sensitive you are to the impact of undetectable biases on inclusion, that a whopping great firing might register on your radar as having an impact on freedom to express oneself.
To say that Damore has benefitted from this by greater freedom than he could ever imagine is like claiming self-immolating Tibetan monks aren't being censored because "look, their acts make the news!".
> Again, I think Google's decisions was stupid and weak.
But you support sacking someone who expresses the views he does in solicited feedback? I ask as I'm really not sure where you stand on this so would appreciate clarity.
> What is your evidence that debate in universities is "shut down" ?
Have you seen what happens on campus when right-wing commentators come to debate? If, for example, I said I welcomed blacks on to campus to discuss the history of slavery...but every time they spoke up I could scream "Niggers!" at them, would you not consider that to be a form of censorship?
> Errr, I'll throw that FFS right back at you.
> What part of being fired, of having an entire institution the size of Google turn against you, where presumably if he had given "correct" viewpoints in his feedback none of this would have happened....isn't censorship by your definition?
No it is not, censorship is suppression of speech. Not only he wasn't suppressed, but he was widely republished, and his ideas were widely debated, which is a sign that free speech is alive and kicking. When your words are streamed to millions over the internet and discussed in every newspaper, you are not being censored.
Free speech doesn't mean you have a right to expect to be able to say anything without having to face public outrage / criticism / embrassement (whether justified or not).
Ultimately Google's reaction was cynical and weak, a bad management decision like millions are suffering every day. But not censorship or an attempt to curtail free speech.
> Have you seen what happens on campus when right-wing commentators come to debate? If, for example, I said I welcomed blacks on to campus to discuss the history of slavery...but every time they spoke up I could scream "Niggers!" at them, would you not consider that to be a form of censorship?
So basically you're saying that right wingers need a safe space and people who might protest against them need to be no-platformed?
Sad that Snoweider (now Blank) decided that their best/only option was to leave in order to totally avoid discussions such as this. It's almost certainly the case that the discussion would benefit most from being able to include the viewpoints of those who most strongly agree and disagree. Often (unfortunately, as here) that's not actually feasible.
If they are hoping to find somewhere where only friendly happy discussions happen, then there are an ever-increasing number of ways to find such a thing (often referred to as an echo chamber) on the internet. Such an environment, though maybe comfortable, reassuring and unchallenging, is probably overall not a good thing when compared to somewhere which is able to handle differing opinions in something approaching a civil manner.
From reading the original post and skimming through the linked article I have to say I didn't find anything hostile towards anybody, rather it seemed to me to be well-intentioned people trying to figure out how to do things fairly, in a complicated and rapidly-evolving environment.
So what you're saying is....
No. I'm saying left and right wingers should be able to present their views and debate them with each other.
Throwing barricades, disrupting debate by setting off fire-alarms, chanting so speakers cannot continue to speak, smearing people who turn up to debates as Nazis (or sacking people who respond with entirely valid viewpoints no shared by others)....that is an attempt to prevent views being presented, to ensure only one view gets heard, to ensure people aren't exposed to contrary viewpoints.
There's no need for safe spaces or no platforming in any of this.
> When your words are streamed to millions over the internet and discussed in every newspaper, you are not being censored.
I think he'd rather have kept his job. The document was for internal discussion. Instead, it was stripped of context and citations and distributed externally by activists, with a ready population willing to express such sufficient outrage to its entirely reasonable discussion points, that many people think it reasonable he be sacked.
We all now know that we cannot question diversity and inclusion policy or propose improvements, even if asked. We know what the correct answers are. That's fine freedom of speech we have.
> Ultimately Google's reaction was cynical and weak, a bad management decision like millions are suffering every day. But not censorship or an attempt to curtail free speech.
Interesting. So its not, as in Google's own words, a correct response to "portions of the memo violating our Code of Conduct and crossing the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace"?
> So basically you're saying that right wingers need a safe space and people who might protest against them need to be no-platformed?
You don't think that there may be a happy medium to be achieved? Kind of, you know, like people could express their disagreement in a civilised manner?
> Interesting. So its not, as in Google's own words, a correct response to "portions of the memo violating our Code of Conduct and crossing the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace"?
Yes, guess what, people get fired every day for voicing out opinions that are embarrassing to management, this has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't give Damore a birthright to have a job at Google.
I'll defend Damore right to say what he wants anytime, but I'll also defend the right of those who disagree with him to say what they want.
> You don't think that there may be a happy medium to be achieved? Kind of, you know, like people could express their disagreement in a civilised manner?
And they do. But the professional agitators such as JP are not interested in that, what they want is maximum confrontation and provocation to create the maximum of noise.
And that's fine if that's what they want to do, and that's also fine for others to have nothing but contempt for their appalling tactics, and to not feel obliged to give them the red carpet in every university.
Fair enough in principle.
But it clashes somewhat with your view that D&I policies are beneficial and should be institutionalised.
The entire purpose of these policies is to force companies to accept the kinds of personality and background differences which, in a workplace, can give rise to clashes and embarrassments. That is the essence of "diversity". That people must work together and be accepted regardless of their backgrounds, beliefs, and ways of thinking - that the workplace is actually enriched by these differences.
If you take the hardline view that employees coming to you with uncomfortable truths are actually a problem and should be sacked, you are surely better having a homogenous workplace, recruiting only from the old-boys network, where everyone looks out for each other? Essentially your view on rights of the employer are anti-diversity.
That is essentially what has happened with the sacking of Damore - its an "old boys network" of lefties (I've worked with exactly the same thing in my previous employment), where only those who abide by the in-crowd's ideals are allowed and if you aren't on board with that then you are out.
Further, under your reasoning, presumably, the BBC would be right to sack all those women who spoke up about pay inequality, given they embarrassed the company?
Or in Google's case, when an employee's opinion was sought, and that employee gave their opinion as requested, when third parties leaked that opinion ....you sack that employee rather than the third parties? Shoot the messenger, yes?
The reactions of Google were a giant "f*ck you" to diversity. Ironic, given they claim to be supporting diversity, and that so many who support Google's behaviour claim to champion diversity. Again, this is exactly the hypocrisy that Jordan Peterson likes to point to.
> And that's fine if that's what they want to do, and that's also fine for others to have nothing but contempt for their appalling tactics, and to not feel obliged to give them the red carpet in every university.
It's almost sounding like you put JP in a special category. He can be silenced, be refused a platform, be slurred with whatever slander you wish...because he's "literally a Nazi!".
Convenient. Call your enemy an animal and anything becomes permissible.
You have no idea what Jordan Peterson wants. Perhaps if you were talking about Milo Yianopoulos I might agree. But you are referring to an academic whose job is to give an opinion. You would label him a "professional agitator" wanting "maximum confrontation and provocation"? How Maoist of you!
> Do you think men are genetically prone to computer coding?
I know that this one isn’t!
> That is the environment we live in.
Am I right in remembering that you worked at SOAS? Could it possibly be that that was the environment you lived in but it's a very different environment from most other people's? I've studied at Glasgow, Leeds, MMU and Sheffield Hallam, and worked at MMU and Helsinki University - and don't recognize the environment you say we live in. I definitely don't recognize it in the former coalfields of NE Derbyshire/South York's where I now live and teach!
It wasn't a view on any workplace I've been in. Its the fact that it appears to be a mainstream left-wing opinion that what Damore wrote is egregious and un-sayable. That sacking him is a perfectly sensible and desirable course of action. The cancer needs to be cut out.
> It's almost sounding like you put JP in a special category. He can be silenced, be refused a platform, be slurred with whatever slander you wish...because he's "literally a Nazi!".
No I have said exactly the opposite.
> Convenient. Call your enemy an animal and anything becomes permissible.
Never I called him an animal. I'll defend JP right to speak whenever you want. But I'll also defend the right of those who criticise him to speak out.
And moreover, he doesn't that he is entitled to be given time and audience in every place where we transmit knowledge. That is something you have to earn.
> You would label him a "professional agitator" wanting "maximum confrontation and provocation"?
That much is bleeding obvious.
> And moreover, he doesn't that he is entitled to be given time and audience in every place where we transmit knowledge.
Has anyone claimed he is?
You twist everything into a strawman. It's your trademark style.
Ok, you're ok with Jordan Peterson speaking.
But its ok for people to turn up to his lectures, beating drums and setting off fire alarms so that he isn't heard?
Yes, or no?
And Google is right to have sacked Damore for their stated reasons?
> Fair enough in principle.
> But it clashes somewhat with your view that D&I policies are beneficial and should be institutionalised.
No it doesn't, because as I've said, I disagree with Google decision.
I am just pointing out that in no shape or form Damore right to free speech has been infringed.
> The entire purpose of these policies is to force companies to accept the kinds of personality and background differences which, in a workplace, can give rise to clashes and embarrassments. That is the essence of "diversity". That people must work together and be accepted regardless of their backgrounds, beliefs, and ways of thinking - that the workplace is actually enriched by these differences.
agree.
> If you take the hardline view that employees coming to you with uncomfortable truths are actually a problem and should be sacked, you are surely better having a homogenous workplace, recruiting only from the old-boys network, where everyone looks out for each other? Essentially your view on rights of the employer are anti-diversity.
Agree.
> That is essentially what has happened with the sacking of Damore - its an "old boys network" of lefties (I've worked with exactly the same thing in my previous employment), where only those who abide by the in-crowd's ideals are allowed and if you aren't on board with that then you are out.
Agree.
> Further, under your reasoning, presumably, the BBC would be right to sack all those women who spoke up about pay inequality, given they embarrassed the company?
No, they wouldn't be right to do so, but if they did, it wouldn't be "curtailing of free speech", it would be just stupid managers.
> Or in Google's case, when an employee's opinion was sought, and that employee gave their opinion as requested, when third parties leaked that opinion ....you sack that employee rather than the third parties? Shoot the messenger, yes?
I agree it's the one responsible for the leak who should have been fired.
> The reactions of Google were a giant "f*ck you" to diversity. Ironic, given they claim to be supporting diversity, and that so many who support Google's behaviour claim to champion diversity.
Agree
> Again, this is exactly the hypocrisy that Jordan Peterson likes to point to.
Yes, this type of thing is gold for JP.
> Ok, you're ok with Jordan Peterson speaking.
> But its ok for people to turn up to his lectures, beating drums and setting off fire alarms so that he isn't heard?
No, it isn't. And they should be thrown the f*ck out by security. And it is mostly stupid because every time this happens this is gold for JP, this is exactly what he wants.
Similar tactics as Trump when he went on campaign BTW.
> Yes, or no?
> And Google is right to have sacked Damore for their stated reasons?
I don't think so. Although I suspect it was probably the best outcome for everybody involved.
> Has anyone claimed he is?
Isn't you who were complaining because one teacher was told not to show JP material in class ?
Again, this may have been a bad decision , but it's got nothing to do with free speech, JP doesn't have a birth right to have his material shown in class, no more than I do.
But you seem to say that the supression of certain opinions, no platforming etc is rife, that this is "the environment we live in". But where? SOAS and Google? There doesn't seem to be any fear over expressing racist, sexist and homophobic views amongst some of the students I teach for example! I worry that the school ISN'T a "safe place" (whether from words or fists) for ethnic minority kids and LGBTQ kids, no matter how good our intentions or policies are because this is coming into school from wider society.
Even if I don't find Peterson's stuff that shocking, he and his fans adopting a victim position either parallels or instructs what you might want to call the proper alt right in playing the same game. See Tommy Robinson's recent escapades.
Wow. We got somewhere.
I think part of the problem is it has been hard to understand your actual position on this. I went through the previous Damore debate where, in response to the reasons given by Google for sacking him, you said
"I think that's a fair assessment from Google, and after having read the memo, I reach the same conclusion."
Fair enough if your opinion changed subsequent to that but, in a thread where the case is being made for diversity, I just find it entirely inconsistent that people can be arguing that any censure of Damore was the correct course of action.
Given the pro-Damore view appears an unpopular one amongst the left and among those who most vocally champion diversity and inclusion policies...
Given political and opinion diversity are conspicuously left out of D&I policy...
Given the claim that greater female participation in the workforce is required, and that this is on account of the benefits of female mental traits - despite no articulation being made of what those traits are, other than to preference female physical characteristics...
....I hope you can understand why many people (Jordan Peterson included) are deeply deeply suspicious of the actual motives of D&I policy.
I watch mouth on the topic of Jordan Peterson. I would never admit in a formal setting, to a boss, to management, to anyone with a say over my continued employment, that I listened to him or that I think James Damore shouldn't be sacked. I would never attempt to discuss these viewpoints, or take a critical stance on D&I policy, among strangers or with anyone who could impinge on my employability.
Admitting to following Damore, Jordan Peterson, and probably a fair number of the IDW feels as toxic as admitting to following the BNP or Tommy Robinson (rehabilitated to a small degree today but not much). My expressed views seem to be extreme views these days with real potential to damage my employability and livelihood. It's the exact reason I removed my name from UKC.
Mainstream opinion is that arguing in their support makes you alt-right, right-wing, or worse.
> . . . but it's got nothing to do with free speech, JP doesn't have a birth right to have his material shown in class, no more than I do.
Sheesh, it's the rights of the *teacher* to present both sides that I was pointing to, and, on other occasions, the rights of *students* who *want* to listen to him talk to invite him to do so -- without this being censored by ideologues.
That is *not* the same as suggesting that JP has the right to a platform, or that he is "entitled to be given time and audience in every place where we transmit knowledge".
You're not a stupid man, Rom, so you won't have accidently confused these two issues, you're doing it quite deliberately as a tactic. And this sort of continual twisting and strawmanning is your trademark. Everyone else at least tries to debate honestly. Yet you're proud of your tricks.
> Mainstream opinion is that arguing in their support makes you alt-right, right-wing, or worse.
>
No it's not. It's the opinion of a minority of highly motivated and vociferous radicals who have managed somehow to convince the media that opinions that only 20 years ago were absolutely normal, that are still absolutely normal across most of the globe, and are widely held possibly by a majority in the developed West, are "extreme".
Obviously. That's why we have Trump, Brexit, Comte, Erdo?an. Only progressive opinions are permitted. Right wing proto-fascism is cruelly suffocated everywhere.
> Sheesh, it's the rights of the *teacher* to present both sides that I was pointing to, and, on other occasions, the rights of *students* who *want* to listen to him talk to invite him to do so -- without this being censored by ideologues.
Is it ? Do teacher have a right to show whatever material they want in class ? Are students entitled to invite anybody they want ? That is new.
> That is *not* the same as suggesting that JP has the right to a platform, or that he is "entitled to be given time and audience in every place where we transmit knowledge".
Exactly, that is not the same, so why all the whining ?
> Obviously. That's why we have Trump, Brexit, Comte, Erdo?an. Only progressive opinions are permitted. Right wing proto-fascism is cruelly suffocated everywhere.
Well, thank you for demonstrating my point.Brexit is proto-fascist. Anyone who voted for Trump? Proto-fascist. Rightyho.
Let me help you out with some more. Immigration levels are too high and should be reduced: xenophobe. Kids are better served being raised by two parents, one of each sex: homophobic bigot. Don’t believe someone with the anatomy of a man can suddenly become a woman just because he says he is? Transphobe. Believe multiculturalism, the active promotion of separation and difference, has been a monumental failure? Racist.
And on and on...
You are talking utter bollocks. 20 years ago it is inconceivable an America president would have imprisoned children in cages , openly admitted sexual assault, casually threatened nuclear war and been widely supported. The idea these opinions were just fine then is a lie. Together they do amount to proto fascism. It is you trying to put ideas off limits by objecting to calling such actions by their appropriate name,whule these views are propagated freely by Brexit art, Fox and the rest.
> You are talking utter bollocks. 20 years ago it is inconceivable an America president would have imprisoned children in cages , openly admitted sexual assault, casually threatened nuclear war and been widely supported. The idea these opinions were just fine then is a lie. Together they do amount to proto fascism. It is you trying to put ideas off limits by objecting to calling such actions by their appropriate name,whule these views are propagated freely by Brexit art, Fox and the rest.
>
What has Trump's outrages got to do with believing in "traditional" family structures are optimal , that most people are either male or female , or that immigration needs to be controlled by the State, or that countries should aim for integration rather separation of cultures?
Trump is a nasty ****. Simply conflating anyone who deosn't share progressive (il)liberal values with the worst of Trump or the alt-right is 1) Simply false 2) Drives ordinary people who hold ordinary views into the arms of Trump and the alt-right. Funnily enough, people don't like being dubbed "proto-fascists" for thinking that most people are either men or women.
Trump et is the direct result of those opinions being widely held and discussed. Look at the mail today - still wanting EU citizens to leave. Such are ideas are widely and freely disseminated. Claiming otherwise is blatantly false.
Trump appears a reaction to the excesses of the left. Something some of us on the Left have come late to the game in recognising. Something many on the Left still appear nowhere close to seeing no matter how often it gets slapped in their face.
Like you say. Once upon a time Trump would never have had a hope in hell. Many of his own supporters see him as a creton. Something must have changed. Why might they still begrudgingly support him?
> Do teacher have a right to show whatever material they want in class ?
Until recently it would have been utterly normal and innocuous that a teacher showed an on-topic clip from a national TV show involving two people debating a pertinent issue.
It wouldn't have occurred to anyone that something that was fine to be broadcast on national TV was not acceptable or appropriate for a group of adult students studying that topic, and that the students needed protecting from it.
That idea has only arisen with the rise of highly ideological activist-based teaching where the aim is not to discuss the issue fairly but is to promote the received version.
> Are students entitled to invite anybody they want ?
Not quite *anybody*, but until recently it would have been considered entirely normal for, say, "Campus Conservatives" or "Campus Democrats" to invite a mainstream conservative or democratic speaker without anyone claiming that the fact that someone has a different viewpoint from them makes them feel "unsafe" to the extent that expressing that viewpoint is "hate speech" that amounts to "violence".
> What has Trump's outrages got to do with believing in "traditional" family structures are optimal , that most people are either male or female , or that immigration needs to be controlled by the State, or that countries should aim for integration rather separation of cultures?
> Trump is a nasty ****. Simply conflating anyone who deosn't share progressive (il)liberal values with the worst of Trump or the alt-right is 1) Simply false 2) Drives ordinary people who hold ordinary views into the arms of Trump and the alt-right. Funnily enough, people don't like being dubbed "proto-fascists" for thinking that most people are either men or women.
Exactly, the likes of Trumps profits from making a big deal of a minority of extreme left wingers who have actually zero actual power, pretty much don't get any votes, and are in fact are extremely marginal.
But it's classic populist politics, create an imaginary threat or conspiracy, and then use that to grab votes.
Instead of over-obsessing about the imaginary threat of "progressive" views, look at who's winning from this, who holds the real power: they are the threat.
> Many of his own supporters see him as a creton.
Trump is a kind of Canadian pork pate?
Man, that's weird!
> Trump et is the direct result of those opinions being widely held and discussed. Look at the mail today - still wanting EU citizens to leave. Such are ideas are widely and freely disseminated. Claiming otherwise is blatantly false.
No, they are the direct result of the metropolitan elite dismissing the rational concerns of the "people from somewhere" and lazily or maliciously conflating those views , often perfectly mainstream views 20 years ago or even now, with the much more malign views of the far right.
Alternative views to the "progressive" consensus may be disseminated by the brave, the foolish, or even the bad, but they will all be indiscriminately demonised by the self appointed guardians of morality, so others learn to suppress their thoughts.
You do it (conflate and demonise) yourself so I wouldn't expect you ever to recognise it let alone to understand the damage it does to your own position.
> Trump et is the direct result of those opinions being widely held and discussed.
Jordan Peterson should be a useful example. Notice how popular he gets when people scream and shout and call him (and his listeners) names? Rather than debating with him?
Perhaps the same might be worthwhile with the Right, with the Trump voters? The ones I have met are reasonably reasonable and quite happy to discuss politics and philosophy and be challenged.
> Look at the mail today - still wanting EU citizens to leave.
And the Daily Mail will forever do so.
I once thought it would be marvelous if the Daily Mail fell down a black hole - especially after it did a particularly nasty piece on some May Day protests back in the early 2000s.
A bit of a turning point for me was when it seemed to be one of the few papers to investigate in depth on the motivations behind the sacking of, and give support to, Sir. Tim Hunt. Much of the media seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to issues that could be viewed in a less than progressive light.
> Exactly, the likes of Trumps profits from making a big deal of a minority of extreme left wingers who have actually zero actual power, pretty much don't get any votes, and are in fact are extremely marginal.
As do the Left - labelling just about anyone centre-left and starboard, lumping us in with the alt-right.
Who is the biggest threat to my livelihood, my meagre income, my acceptance within society, my freedom of speech, my freedom from over-bearing rules? I never expected to be pointing the finger at the left, but that's where the threat comes from today. The right accepts me far more readily than the left does. That seems to be the way for many of us in the centre-left.
That's probably a large factor why a Hillary loses to a Trump, a Corbyn to May, and a Remain to a Brexit.
> Until recently it would have been utterly normal and innocuous that a teacher showed an on-topic clip from a national TV show involving two people debating a pertinent issue.
> It wouldn't have occurred to anyone that something that was fine to be broadcast on national TV was not acceptable or appropriate for a group of adult students studying that topic, and that the students needed protecting from it.
Yes, fine, but we agree that it was stupid. But I don't see this as a big deal not a sign that freedom of speech is being threatened.
Universities and teachers make choices every day about the material they show and it's only perfectly natural that frictions will occur.
> Not quite *anybody*, but until recently it would have been considered entirely normal for, say, "Campus Conservatives" or "Campus Democrats" to invite a mainstream conservative or democratic speaker without anyone claiming that the fact that someone has a different viewpoint from them makes them feel "unsafe" to the extent that expressing that viewpoint is "hate speech" that amounts to "violence".
Jordan Peterson is not a mainstream conservative, he is promoting an abhorrent ideology sugar coated with layers of poisonous, duplicitous rethoric.
You may not agree but the fact that we disagree shows why he is controversial and why some universities may decide to not give him airtime.
I mentioned Anjem Choudary before. And I think that's quite relevant because there are lot of similarities between JP and him. They use the same duplicitous rhetoric and tricks to promote an extreme ideology with eloquence whilst always pretending good intentions.
> Jordan Peterson is not a mainstream conservative, he is promoting an abhorrent ideology sugar coated with layers of poisonous, duplicitous rethoric.
Well I confess that I've never watched a Peterson video, and nor have I read any of his writings. So can you give a couple of examples of views he holds that place him beyond the pale?
> Jordan Peterson is not a mainstream conservative, he is promoting an abhorrent ideology sugar coated with layers of poisonous, duplicitous rethoric.
Can you explain what the ideology is, other than conservatism?
Given Peterson has gone to lengths to both highlight the dangers of inequality, and to state that traits specific to conservative AND liberal mindsets are of equal importance to a functioning society (something I doubt his detractors or much of the Left would be willing to admit), I'm intrigued to know how he is considered so extreme.
> I mentioned Anjem Choudary before. And I think that's quite relevant because there are lot of similarities between JP and him.
Given this comparison, let's have a quick reminder of Choudary's views. He's supported Terrorism and terrorist groups, and refused to condemn the 7/7 bombings. About ISIS he has said that al-Baghdadi, its leader, is "the caliph of all Muslims and the prince of the believers".
He wants Sharia law imposed on the UK, and has said: "As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals". Lots more on wiki.
What has JP said that is comparable?
> I mentioned a before. And I think that's quite relevant because there are lot of similarities between JP and him. They use the same duplicitous rhetoric and tricks to promote an extreme ideology with eloquence whilst always pretending good intentions.
To be honest, I'm finding it difficult to see that Peterson's so called extreme ideology can in anyway be compared to Choudary's.
His latest one, commenting on the incel terrorist attack in Toronto:
"Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married."
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
I am taking this as an example as it's quite representative of this "double meaning" style of his.
He made sure that you can interpret it as if he was simply making a commentary about monogamy as a social phenomenon, but in there, subliminally at the very least, he insinuates the idea that "enforced monogamy" is a "cure" that society should promote.
He is too smart a guy for me believing that this is perfectly innocent, he understands the power of words. This is done on purpose, most likely to cause controversy and get more views / sell more books, but also to attract a dedicated following amongst marginalised men who are yearning for someone to come along and vindicate their darkest instincts.
As I've said, I'll always defend his right to speak his weasel word. However I'll also defend my right to call out the bullshit and point out the finger to the danger when I see it.
> To be honest, I'm finding it difficult to see that Peterson's so called extreme ideology can in anyway be compared to Choudary's.
Of course the ideologies are quite different, but the tactics are similar. This way of always threading this fine rhetoric line, to deliver a vicious message subliminally.
Choudary slipped towards the end and got caught, Peterson is too smart for that though, which makes him even more dangerous.
> No it's not. It's the opinion of a minority of highly motivated and vociferous radicals who have managed somehow to convince the media that...
Yes because it is simply just impossible to hear anti-feminism, anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ equality, and conservative voices across the British media landscape. Or something.
> Let me help you out with some more. Immigration levels are too high and should be reduced: xenophobe. Kids are better served being raised by two parents, one of each sex: homophobic bigot. Don’t believe someone with the anatomy of a man can suddenly become a woman just because he says he is? Transphobe. Believe multiculturalism, the active promotion of separation and difference, has been a monumental failure? Racist.
And that's why the Daily Mail is going bankrupt?
> Trump appears a reaction to the excesses of the left.
That should be another thread, but I think if you really believe that, your analysis of American politics is fundamentally wrong. But like I said, another thread.
> His latest one, commenting on the incel terrorist attack in Toronto:
> "Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married."
> “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”>
Well, good to see your consistent and twist JP's words just like you do everybody elses'.
> Not quite *anybody*, but until recently it would have been considered entirely normal for, say, "Campus Conservatives" or "Campus Democrats" to invite a mainstream conservative or democratic speaker without anyone claiming that the fact that someone has a different viewpoint from them makes them feel "unsafe" to the extent that expressing that viewpoint is "hate speech" that amounts to "violence".
Considering the history of campus politics in the US, with Kent State being perhaps the nadir by no means the only example, your point seems, well, bollocks.
> And that's why the Daily Mail is going bankrupt?
Ah, you mean the purveyor of all evil?
It's actually a weird form of cognitive dissonance. Week after week we get well documented cases of reasonable people being hounded, sometimes out of their jobs, for minor "transgressions" of the liberal consensus (Hunt, Shriver and Lebow spring immediately to mind) and the liberals say "You can say what you want. Nothing going on here"
But suit yourselves. There's none so blind etc....
> No, they are the direct result of the metropolitan elite dismissing the rational concerns of the "people from somewhere" and lazily or maliciously conflating those views , often perfectly mainstream views 20 years ago or even now, with the much more malign views of the far right.
Or to rephrase: "boo hoo, look at me, I'm the victim! I'm not allowed to say whatever come into my head with out people calling me nasty things! Boo hoo."
If we have "progressive consensus" it's a pretty shit version of progressiveness considering the UK is leaving the EU; we have a Tory government propped up by nationalist fundamentalist-Presbyterian party; we have relatively harsh immigration laws that include treating people claiming refugee status, at times, outside of international humanitarian law; the public sector is being squeezed to breaking point; the unions have been systematically defanged; an acceptance of consumerist capitalism is the norm; and so on. Either your "metropolitan elites", who supposedly have all the power, want all of the above, in which case they are not progressive, or there is no consensus on it.
I'll happily concede that most people now think anyone who want to call British Asians "pakis", who use the n-word at black people, or would call gays "faggots" generally get looked down on - but I don't think you are arguing that that is a bad thing are you?
> Week after week we get well documented cases of reasonable people being hounded, sometimes out of their jobs, for minor "transgressions" of the liberal consensus (Hunt, Shriver and Lebow spring immediately to mind)
Hunt?
Lionel Shriver? It seems she has been asked to step down from the judging panel of some book prize that I've never heard of before.
Lebow - had to look that one up, but it seems he refused to make an official apology and that's where it stands. Has anything actually happened to him? His employer seems to have nothing to do with it, it was the ISA that criticised him.
But I know of a pretty horrendous case of wrong doing at a UK uni where the dept. basically covered it up. In fact over my academic career I'm aware of a number of those sort of incidents. But no one else knows, people just go on with life and try to deal with it because its never going to make the Mail's front page. I know some of my (young) students have taken racist abuse from other students, told they are terrorists, told to go back to their own country (of course they are British born citizens). But week after week you don't hear anything about that, because its just not very important is it? How many female friends or relatives do you know have been sexually assaulted and never reported it? How many men do you know who have acted abysmally to someone they work with and have never had to answer for their (sometimes literal) crimes?
Regarding Shriver, its worth reading up on the background from around a week ago. This is about far more than being dropped from a literary competition. The back story is specifically about a diversity and inclusion policy at Penguin books. Its interesting, as always, to see the reaction to what seem like fair questions from her - dropped, pilloried and shunned. Like I said, this is the environment...
Tim Hunt you are surely aware of.
As for students, I've seen the opposite side of what you experienced. I'm less concerned about kids. In many ways they may not know better. But grown adults in professional and powerful positions is something else.
As someone who has followed this thread without necessarily commeting, thank you for your contributions which seem to reflect a reality i can recognise. Everything else on this thread seems to be a construction to support at rhetorical position the poster has taken far earlier on the thread, or indeed on other previous threads.
> His latest one, commenting on the incel terrorist attack in Toronto:
That's the most damning you can find? His position, that society should have an expectation of monogamy, would have been considered mundane and normal in generations prior to our own. Now I don't think it's a particularly sensible thing for Peterson to say, and while it might make him a bit silly, does it make him a dangerous radical? Nope.
"Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”
https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monoga...
Don't you see the double meaning and insinuations ? Do you really fall for the layer of pseudo-intellectual verbose bollocking he adds to everything to give it a polished shine ?
Do you think that the growing incel online subculture, who believe they have a birthright in having sex with women, in which he is regarded as a hero has the intellectual capacity to make the difference ?
> Don't you see the double meaning and insinuations ? Do you really fall for the layer of pseudo-intellectual verbose bollocking he adds to everything to give it a polished shine ?
Umm, well no I don't actually. (Though as stated I've watched or read very little of him, so may not be the greatest JP interpreter. But anyhow, most people are pretty straightforward in what they say, so taking people at face value is often a good idea.)
So what do you think he's actually trying to say? And is your stance that he's a dangerous radical because of what you read into him, not because of what he's actually said?
> Do you think that the growing incel online subculture, who believe they have a birthright in having sex with women, in which he is regarded as a hero has the intellectual capacity to make the difference ?
By "growing incel online subculture" you mean a small handful (count them on your fingers) of sad losers on a couple of reddit subthreads, who are of almost no wider significance -- except occasionally in a society in which sad losers have way-too-ready access to guns?
> Don't you see the double meaning and insinuations ? Do you really fall for the layer of pseudo-intellectual verbose bollocking he adds to everything to give it a polished shine ?
I don't see that at all. In fact I can't for the life of me see what the issue is with his comments on incel culture. Surely he, like everyone else can venture forward a possible explanation on why it exists and how to deal with it. Even if you do happen to have better suggestions.
> Do you think that the growing incel online subculture in which he is regarded as a hero
Really? You are just making crap up now. Peterson is utterly dismissive of incels.
> I suggest you carefully analyse his language.
Hundreds of thousands of people are doing exactly that. Curiously, they find his points interesting and food for thought. I suspect your objection to him is you are ideologically opposed to his non-Left viewpoint - and therefore try to paint him in to some conspiracy.
> I don't see that at all.
You don't see much, do you.
> Hundreds of thousands of people are doing exactly that. Curiously, they find his points interesting and food for thought. I suspect your objection to him is you are ideologically opposed to his non-Left viewpoint - and therefore try to paint him in to some conspiracy.
Ffs, I am not left wing.
> But I know of a pretty horrendous case of wrong doing at a UK uni where the dept. basically covered it up. In fact over my academic career I'm aware of a number of those sort of incidents. But no one else knows, people just go on with life and try to deal with it because its never going to make the Mail's front page. I know some of my (young) students have taken racist abuse from other students, told they are terrorists, told to go back to their own country (of course they are British born citizens). But week after week you don't hear anything about that, because its just not very important is it? How many female friends or relatives do you know have been sexually assaulted and never reported it? How many men do you know who have acted abysmally to someone they work with and have never had to answer for their (sometimes literal) crimes?
>
We have created a large bank of laws and and and whole (diversity) industry to address the kind of problems that you mention! How can possibly think that the problems are flying under the radar? Racism has become, in the liberal lexicon, the ultimate crime.
And no, not every case of racial or sexual abuse reaches the media, but many do. What is your point on this anyway? It seems to be a massive case of false equivalence.You appear to be implying that because some people get away with real racial or sexual harassment this justifies disciplinary measures or vilification of people who tell bad jokes or hold views outside the liberal consensus.
Or are you saying something else?
> Umm, well no I don't actually. (Though as stated I've watched or read very little of him, so may not be the greatest JP interpreter. But anyhow, most people are pretty straightforward in what they say, so taking people at face value is often a good idea.)
> So what do you think he's actually trying to say? And is your stance that he's a dangerous radical because of what you read into him, not because of what he's actually said?
The point is that if he says that "enforced monogamy" is a "cure", how do you think that plays with his audience of marginalised young males ? Do you think they understand the difference ? And don't you think JP is perfectly aware of that ?
> By "growing incel online subculture" you mean a small handful (count them on your fingers) of sad loses on a couple of reddit subthreads, who are of almost no wider significance -- except occasionally in a society in which sad losers have way-too-ready access to guns?
You are wrong if you think it's a small handful of people. Go outisde the big cities, in depraved working class areas, and speak with male teenagers. This culture is rife, propagating via social media and online video game.
My mate who is teaching in a HE college in a working class area is almost going into depression because of it. They have had three serious cases of sexual harassment and one serious case of online blackmail against young girls in this year alone. In every case, committed by male teenegers who spend their time in the online video game subculture and sharing videos of Jordan Peterson and similar other self help gurus.
Well sorry if I find this extremely worrying.
> . . . his audience of marginalised young males ? Do you think they understand the difference ?
Probably not.
> And don't you think JP is perfectly aware of that ?
He's probably not aware of it, no. You seem to regard this as a calculated dog whistle. It's probably more a case of a clumsy use of academic language, standard in the field, not thinking through how it might be interpreted more widely.
> They have had three serious cases of sexual harassment and one serious case of online blackmail against young girls in this year alone.
I suspect that such things are -- sadly -- a part of late-adolescence. Some level of sexual harassment and sexual assault has been a part of most societies long before JP and likely will be long after JP. That's not to say we shouldn't act to minimise it, but I'm willing to bet it's not a new phenomena created by JP videos.
> The point is that if he says that "enforced monogamy" is a "cure", how do you think that plays with his audience of marginalised young males ? Do you think they understand the difference ? And don't you think JP is perfectly aware of that ?
You're sounding like you come from the Ezra Klein school of thought; if someone can misunderstand or misinterpret the thesis then we shouldn't discuss the thesis.
> In every case, committed by male teenegers who spend their time in the online video game subculture and sharing videos of Jordan Peterson and similar other self help gurus.
Jesus. That sounds like the satan-worship hysteria of old - goth kids, wearing black, listening to music we don't like.
Also been in it for twenty plus years, I don't think women are missing out on anything to be honest!
There are plenty of women offshore working as stewards and cooks, heli admin and to a lesser extent medics. Still very few working in any other role and the handful I have seen over the years tend to go into the office or do something else completely different within a few years or often months. That has not changed one bit in the 23 years I have known
I don't know if there are barriers (perceived or otherwise) or women chose to not work offshore due to biology or social conditioning. Almost certainly there are - I doubt many women would want to start a family and work away from home 50% of the year. Even if they did then they would probably worry about how they were perceived as a mother or feel some guilt. For a father it is considered unfortunate but normal to have to work away from home. I'm not saying either attitude is right or wrong.
I do know most blokes who do the genuinely hard and shitty jobs offshore would be apalled at the thought of their wives or daughters having to do that work. Is that patriarchal and patronising or a commendable male desire to do the best for your family (biology or society again?)
I suspect many leave due to the culture in the industry - you have to be pretty thick-skinned as a woman to deal with it and I wouldn't recommend it as a career choice to a female friend or relative. Or a male one for that matter!
> The point is that if he says that "enforced monogamy" is a "cure", how do you think that plays with his audience of marginalised young males ? Do you think they understand the difference ? And don't you think JP is perfectly aware of that ?
>
It wasn't made to this audience. It was made to a journalist with an axe to grind who dleliberately misrepresented it. JP clarified the meaning online to anyone who wanted to listen.
Some people will misinterpret one's meaning whatever is said.......
I always think the now thankfully locked up away from anyone idiot Anjem is a nice example of the real meaning of free speech. It isn’t freedom to say what you like regardless. Probably best.
Lionel Shriver is nothing but a provocateur. She will say or do whatever shocks for attention and to sell her dreadful books. This week anti-diversity, last week, consent is boring, before that it was making a big deal about how everyone was picking on her for ”accidentally” serving tea to a journalist in a paramilitary mug. Actually no one cares, or noticed, which is presumably why she brought it up again. She is like a well spoken Katie Hopkins. She reminds me a bit of our very own provocative attention seeking gobs%@te to be honest.
And other than that thinly veiled ad hom, I assume nothing can be said about the issue Shriver was making?
> Probably not.
> He's probably not aware of it, no. You seem to regard this as a calculated dog whistle. It's probably more a case of a clumsy use of academic language, standard in the field, not thinking through how it might be interpreted more widely.
Do you really think Jordan Peterson is someone who has a clumsy use of language and doesn't understand how is words will be interpreted ? He strikes me as someone with an extremely high verbal intelligence, outstanding communication skills, who understand human pshyche and knows exactly what he is doing - and always choose words carefully for "plausible deniability".
> I suspect that such things are -- sadly -- a part of late-adolescence. Some level of sexual harassment and sexual assault has been a part of most societies long before JP and likely will be long after JP. That's not to say we shouldn't act to minimise it, but I'm willing to bet it's not a new phenomena created by JP videos.
According to him, and his colleagues who have been doing this job for twenty years, it's never been this bad.
Even if it's not new, it doesn't mean we are not allowed to point out that JP (and others) and fuelling these flames.
Yes, it's funny isn't it, he's always "misrepresented" or "misunderstood", and it's always the fault of some sort of "conspiracy"
Odd, isn't it.
> Do you really think Jordan Peterson is someone who has a clumsy use of language and doesn't understand how is words will be interpreted ?
By his own admission he f*cks up comments. He's stated it's his biggest fear and he gives thousands of hours of unguarded off the cuff commentary.
> According to him, and his colleagues who have been doing this job for twenty years, it's never been this bad.
Obviously Peterson's fault.
> Even if it's not new, it doesn't mean we are not allowed to point out that JP (and others) and fuelling these flames.
Guilt by association. Peterson is pushing the incel movement? You're getting ridiculous.
> Yes, it's funny isn't it, he's always "misrepresented" or "misunderstood", and it's always the fault of some sort of "conspiracy"
>
Brilliant. You can't help yourself can you?!
> Do you really think Jordan Peterson is someone who has a clumsy use of language and doesn't understand how is words will be interpreted ?
Yes.
> He strikes me as someone with an extremely high verbal intelligence, outstanding communication skills, who understand human pshyche and knows exactly what he is doing - and always choose words carefully for "plausible deniability".
Really? OK, well then, he strikes me -- judging from things like the podcast he did with Sam Harris -- as someone who spouts a lot of incoherent nonsense with a rather poor understanding of quite a lot of things. YMMV.
But feel free to construct your bogey-figure in chief, who is of course largely responsible for sexual assault in the Western world. You do realise that it's people reacting like you do who are his biggest recruiter?
I just wish I lived in your world where the biggest problem is people getting criticised or even losing their jobs for making crap jokes. Where is it exactly? It sounds nice.
Us "liberals" can say racism is the ultimate crime to our heart's content, but from what I see we're doing a completely crap job of it, because I see plenty of racism, and I don't mean complex ideas of structural power relations, I mean 11 yr old lads I teach, who are a bit browner than the average, getting called effing pakis or terrorists.
> By his own admission he f*cks up comments. He's stated it's his biggest fear and he gives thousands of hours of unguarded off the cuff commentary.
He also said that his IQ tests demonstrated that he has a very high verbal intelligence, I'm only telling you what he said.
> Guilt by association. Peterson is pushing the incel movement? You're getting ridiculous.
Not directly, but if he is one of their hero, there is a reason for that.
> Yes.
> Really? OK, well then, he strikes me -- judging from things like the podcast he did with Sam Harris -- as someone who spouts a lot of incoherent nonsense with a rather poor understanding of quite a lot of things. YMMV.
We agre that it is mostly nonsense, but it doesn't actually need to make sense. Propaganda doesn't need to make sense, or just needs to work.
Trump would be the chief exemple of that, talking absolute nonsensical gobshite, yet generating a cult following and whipping up an authoritarian agenda.
> But feel free to construct your bogey-figure in chief, who is of course largely responsible for sexual assault in the Western world. You do realise that it's people reacting like you do who are his biggest recruiter?
I have never said that, you are the one exaggerating my case against him in order to dismiss the criticism I make of him.
> I just wish I lived in your world where the biggest problem is people getting criticised or even losing their jobs for making crap jokes. Where is it exactly? It sounds nice.
>
I call strawman.
Like I said, your making a false equivalence.
Do the JPs, Hunts, Shrivers et al of this world think that racism is fine? No.
Does the radical left want to close down debate and to bully (university) authorities into making it happen? Yes.
> We agre that it is mostly nonsense, ...
So he's spouting nonsense, yet a couple of comments ago you thought he was an evil genius with: "extremely high verbal intelligence, outstanding communication skills, who understand human pshyche"?
> So he's spouting nonsense, yet a couple of comments ago you thought he was an evil genius with: "extremely high verbal intelligence, outstanding communication skills, who understand human pshyche"?
Why do you think the two are incompatible ?
> I call strawman.
> Like I said, your making a false equivalence.
> Do the JPs, Hunts, Shrivers et al of this world think that racism is fine? No.
> Does the radical left want to close down debate and to bully (university) authorities into making it happen? Yes.
The problem starts when you start portraying all those who notice with alarm and urgency that the foundations of the post war liberal era are being shaken to the core as a cabal of radical lefties.
The radical left has no power, no traction, no bite, in the meantime racism and sexism are making a big return, especially amongst impressionable youth or marginalised factions of society, and separating children from their parent is ok as long as they are "foreigners".
As much as I dislike the radical lefties who throw eggs at Jordan Peterson when he speaks, it seems to me they are just the useful idiots,a by product of today's politics.
> The problem starts when you start portraying all those who notice with alarm and urgency that the foundations of the post war liberal era are being shaken to the core as a cabal of radical lefties.
Exactly Its difficult to know if PMP, Pan etc don't see, don't care about, or actively welcome this.
> Regarding Shriver, its worth reading up on the background from around a week ago. This is about far more than being dropped from a literary competition. The back story is specifically about a diversity and inclusion policy at Penguin books. Its interesting, as always, to see the reaction to what seem like fair questions from her - dropped, pilloried and shunned. Like I said, this is the environment...
Yes, I read her original article in the Spectator. Did you? Really? She didn't just raise "fair questions", she mocked and belittled the idea of quotas in a piece which was quite Clarkesonesque, but not as good. The judging panel she was due to sit on was for an organisation which promotes and supports women's writing. It doesn't seem that unreasonable for them drop her does it? I really don't think it fits your preferred narrative of poor Shriver being unfairly picked upon when I read her original article, which in turn doesn't support your idea of "this is the environment".
Here's a simpler way of looking at it.
It is possible to not be racist, not be sexist, not be whatever other -ist that apparently blights the land, and also see something sinister in it being acceptable to lose your livelihood or have your language dictated to, for simply, as PMP noted, taking a right-of-centre (although whether its even "right" is debatable) stance on topics that 20 years ago would have been entirely open for discussion.
Challenging this shift, pointing to its origins, and noting a pattern in who is pushing this agenda, in classic strawman, is portrayed by progressives as believing in a conspiracy theory. Call it whatever you want. But something has clearly changed in the last decade or so and it hasn't been driven by the Right.
The progressive rationale almost seems to be, because Trump exists, because Brexit exists, because the devil is metaphorically stalking the land, there must be an equal and opposite push. Sacrifices need to be made on the other side to shore up the bulkheads of progressive thought; Damore must lose his job, Hunt must lose his job, opposing viewpoints are aggressions because they hurt and must be eliminated.
The foundations of the post-war liberal era aren't being eroded by Trump, or Brexit. Brexit, and Trump were the results of popular votes, whether you like it or not. Something anti-Trump and far too many remainers steadfastly refuse to accept. The threat to liberal foundations is dismissing all those people who voted for them as unworthy. The threat to a liberal consensus is the view that we now can exchange freedom for security. To restrict others because it will hurt feelings. To declare discussions off limits. Cases like Damore and Hunt are touch-paper issues that illustrate where the two sides stand. And from these it seems pretty clear where the threat to liberal ideas comes from.
You maybe need to accept that the likes of the Peterson and the IDW are the centre-ground. They're popular because they have the balls to speak up when being attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.
> she mocked and belittled the idea of quotas in a piece which was quite Clarkesonesque
They deserve to be mocked! They're talking about quotas for christsake.
It's called swapping "equality of opportunity" with "equality of outcome". Which is an utterly terrible idea that deserves to be mocked to kingdom-come! Or at least, have it open to discussion.....don't punish the person who challenges the idea.
Choosing who gets published not on merit, but on their skin colour or sex. Basically judging books by their cover, so to speak. I know that "meritocracy" is now a dirty word, but come on!
> Yes, I read her original article in the Spectator. Did you? Really? She didn't just raise "fair questions", she mocked and belittled the idea of quotas in a piece which was quite Clarkesonesque, but not as good. >
Is it your view that being against quotas is a position that should be unacceptable to anyone who promotes and supports womens' writing?
> Exactly Its difficult to know if PMP, Pan etc don't see, don't care about, or actively welcome this.
For the record, I worry about Trump's disrespect for the democratic process and threat to the post WW2 settlement and the lunacy of the alt-right.
But, once again, you are conflating and confusing two things. The "middle ground" which I think we would both subscribe to (democratic, genuinely liberal and tolerant, non authoritarian)is under threat. But to lay this out the feet of ordinary people who feel that their interests and rights have been ignored by the ruling class for so long is completely misunderstanding what is happening.These ordinary people aren't undemocratic. They are desperate.
People who no-platform or try to crush the views of people they disagree with are not "those who notice with alarm and urgency that the foundations of the post war liberal era are under threat". They don't care about that. They are, as much as Trump or the alt-right, attacking the values of traditional centre ground liberalism. The concern of true liberals is both that the radical authoritarian left, helped by the new phenomenon of social media, is gaining traction and and its views becoming insidiously acceptable in the media and as a result amongst the ruling elite, and that the Trumpite alt right is undermining established liberal democracy from the right.
The people who who notice with alarm and urgency that the foundations of the post war liberal era are under threat are the middle ground. The truth is that the threat is coming from extremists from both extremes. The liberal right has no problem rejecting and condemning the alt-right, Trump or Erdogan. Why can the liberal left do the same for its increasingly influential extremists instead of remaining in denial?
No.
> No.
So it is the tone ie. "mocking and belittling" that you think should get her disqualified, not her view?
> No.
So what is it if it’s not what it would be reasonably inferred to be from your post?
I'm a little concerned your continued requests for justifications will be seen as micro-aggressions.
I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether she should or shouldn't have been dropped. That's not my point, and it's none of my business. I don't think it was unreasonable of them to drop her though and the fact that they did drop her I don't see anything especially significant.
> I'm a little concerned your continued requests for justifications will be seen as micro-aggressions.
>
Hmm... I’m imagining I am my daughter and behaving accordingly!
Don't you see a less than subtle pressure that comes from this though?
It says, "question us and expect to be kicked out of the club, you're not part of the gang if you think a certain way".
Put another way, aren't these sorts of unsubtle stabs exactly the kinds of things that diversity & inclusion policies are designed to stamp out? Those minor, possibly subconscious, biases that deny access to groups of people.
Doesn't it maybe look like the sorts of progressive inclusive attitudes an organisation like Penguin claims to embody don't apply to those who think the wrong way?
I get the impression quite a number in the UKC community are happy to point to discrimination where there is no palpable evidence of it. But shut their eyes when clear links between expressing certain opinions results in exclusion.
> The liberal right has no problem rejecting and condemning the alt-right, Trump or Erdogan. Why can the liberal left do the same for its increasingly influential extremists instead of remaining in denial?
I see and hear the mainstream liberal left rejecting the extremists when challenged. The problem is that people are trying to find *equivalency* between the current dangers of right and left wing extremists. Erdogan is a Tyrant, Trump is destabilising the planet, the de facto Italian PM is talking about a register for the Roma Gypsies, Hungary is becoming something uglier by the minute, but here we are talking about someone being dropped from a panel of writers. Excuse us for not getting too animated about it.
Isn't that dodging the issue?
Its all very well expressing outrage at Erdogan or Orban. But what are you going to do about Hungarian or Turkish politics? Everyone, right and left, Peterson and Jones, is in agreement it sucks. Recognising that shouldn't stop you from being vocal about left-wing restrictions on free speech...which sounds more like an excuse for shrugging shoulders.
Meanwhile, especially if we consider ourselves activists and foot soldiers for diversity and inclusion, staying silent about Hunts or Shrivers by pretending to be pre-occupied by Erdogans or Trumps, looks suspiciously like ideological myopia and a massive slice of whataboutery.
> It is possible to not be racist, not be sexist, not be whatever other -ist that apparently blights the land, and also see something sinister in it being acceptable to lose your livelihood
I'll just ask directly and accept you might not want to answer, but did you lose a job in some way like to this? You keep coming back to this point so it seems pertinent.
> The foundations of the post-war liberal era aren't being eroded by Trump, or Brexit. Brexit, and Trump were the results of popular votes, whether you like it or not.
But Trump didn't win the popular vote, he won the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote, by something like 2 million IIRC.
I haven't suggested staying silent. I'm saying that if I was an activist I know to which threat to liberal values I'd dedicate the vast majority of my efforts.
> I'll just ask directly and accept you might not want to answer, but did you lose a job in some way like to this? You keep coming back to this point so it seems pertinent.
No. Unemployment appears established as an acceptable outcome for those departing from allowable opinion on gender and race differences in the workplace. So I shut up about my views and go through the motions of being onboard with the programme. I sit through inclusion training being told I am the beneficiary of unfair advantage, knowing better than to challenge it. I diligently watch my mouth, self-censor, and do my best to exhibit no sexual, racial or disability bias...while listening to open proclamations that Tories, Trump supporters, or those listening to Jordan Peterson and suchlike are scum, while now being in my second successive workplace where its pretty clear if my views on JP or less than vitriolic attitude to the bete noires of the Left were known there's a good likelihood I wouldn't have been recruited.
Not an acceptable outcome as far as I'm concerned, but what can you do?
> But Trump didn't win the popular vote, he won the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote, by something like 2 million IIRC.
That is the system. Its a shitty one but it doesn't invalidate Trump's right to be president any more than FPP's lack of proportionality makes the May government illegitimate.
I'd be happy to reply if I had a clue what you are asking?
> And other than that thinly veiled ad hom, I assume nothing can be said about the issue Shriver was making?
What's an ad hom?
...to be clear on where I have an issue, it is the hypocrisy of D&I. Either enforce diversity or don't.
What we have is a half-arsed system that very conveniently seems to privilege certain viewpoints over others, certain forms of diversity over others.
It basically looks to me like a tool to enforce a political-social agenda. While banishing counter viewpoints.
> I'd be happy to reply if I had a clue what you are asking?
Here's your post:
"Lionel Shriver is nothing but a provocateur. She will say or do whatever shocks for attention and to sell her dreadful books. This week anti-diversity, last week, consent is boring, before that it was making a big deal about how everyone was picking on her for ”accidentally” serving tea to a journalist in a paramilitary mug. Actually no one cares, or noticed, which is presumably why she brought it up again. She is like a well spoken Katie Hopkins. She reminds me a bit of our very own provocative attention seeking gobs%@te to be honest. "
...which completely fails to address the issue she was raising. Namely, that Penguin has apparently pledged that by 2025 the ethnicity, gender, disability and sexual preferences of the book authors it signs will match their relative proportions in UK society. Equality of outcome basically.
I have no skin in this particular game. I know nothing about Shriver, other than she is someone who expressed what appears to be a valid concern over D&I policy (quotas). What concerns me is yet again, here is someone who appears to be punished for doing exactly that....and the progressive, diversity, inclusion loving Left are happily crowing from the sidelines as it happens.
I'm all ears if you could explain to me how her argument was faulty. Maybe she got Penguin's policy completely wrong. But attacking her as a person....ad hom....or ad hominem....doesn't really do that.
> Unemployment appears established as an acceptable outcome for those departing from allowable opinion on gender and race differences in the workplace.
I would suggest that the law would not be on their side if that were to be tested.
Two issues with that.
One is the pervasive culture that makes it entirely acceptable to tarnish someone in the workplace on account of their opinion. That the outraged lynch mob, with seemingly muted reigning in from the mainstream left, becomes reason enough for a person's position to become untenable. The view on UKC has commonly been expressed that Google was right to remove Damore because, once his memo went public, even if it was in itself uncontentious, the resulting social-media storm makes his sacking the only possible response. It's a bit like the Guantanamo rationale: we might have been wrong to lock them up, but now we've locked them up and they're radicalised we can't release them.
Two, what happened in Tim Hunt's case? We're lucky with him because he was old. He had little to lose by going public. How many similar situations are "resolved" by removing those who run afoul of D&I sentiment via undisclosed settlements?
> She reminds me a bit of our very own provocative attention seeking gobs%@te to be honest.
Playing devils advocate here, but the person in question was all but shut down by a 'Lefty' on a recent thread and is subsequently unable to post.
Maybe an example of the Left complaining to the powers that be and getting the result that they want?
My old neighbour across the street works for the post office. He's taking his family back to Hungary because after the referendum he's been the victim of sustained anti immigrant abuse and bullying and his bosses don't seem interested.
Your workplace seems pretty awful, but I don't think that's very normal. My experience was of an alcoholic (male) boss who would ''hug" young women employees if they were alone with him in the evening etc. The institute ended up lead item on the national news when journalists got wind of what was happening but guess who ended up keeping their job and who took another, not as good, job elsewhere?
I didn’t know that.
I generally look at the person and whether I trust them before I decide to take their opinions seriously. What I am saying is that having read one of her books, which was shocking, and having seen the ridiculous incident with the paramilitary mug she isn’t someone who’s opinion I value. Hence I haven’t read the details of the incident in question. However I do take your point about the opinion rather than the person and I will read it and try to be unbiased and fair and see if her views are something I agree with or not.
I dis-liked so I'll explain why. It's not about trying to acheive parity. It's about encouraging young people into roles they are interested in rather than roles that their elders think would suit them.
> I dis-liked so I'll explain why. It's not about trying to acheive parity. It's about encouraging young people into roles they are interested in rather than roles that their elders think would suit them.
Where is anyone saying anything different?
> I didn’t know that.
Here's what I believe instigated proceedings:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/upskirting-687824?v=1#x8803872
Not sure what was subsequently said, but I don't think anyone involved can claim innocence or a moral high ground...
Surprised you view that as "shutting him down", it's mild in comparison to many of his posts, and an attempt to stop *him* shutting down discussion on the topic by deflection. On substance it's also true.I certainly didn't request he was banned.
> It's about encouraging young people into roles they are interested in rather than roles that their elders think would suit them.
Absolutely everyone agrees. In all my discussions of this in universities, I've never found anyone who disagrees or who is unwilling to promote and encourage girls' participation. Lots of people are willing to put large efforts into that.
> It's not about trying to acheive parity.
De facto, it *is* about trying to attain parity, in that there is an expectation that ratios should be moving towards parity, with an implication and assumption that people and institutions are at fault if they are not.
> I see and hear the mainstream liberal left rejecting the extremists when challenged. The problem is that people are trying to find *equivalency* between the current dangers of right and left wing extremists. Erdogan is a Tyrant, Trump is destabilising the planet, the de facto Italian PM is talking about a register for the Roma Gypsies, Hungary is becoming something uglier by the minute, but here we are talking about someone being dropped from a panel of writers. Excuse us for not getting too animated about it.
>
If the "liberal left" is "rejecting the extremists" how come they spends so much time arguing against the critics of extremists?
A brief reading of history would tell you that it doesn't always take revolutions or men in jackboots to destroy democratic institutions. They can be insidiously undermined from within and that is what is happening, at least in the US, to its universities which should be bastions of real liberalism and free debate.
It's a bit like a house. Everyone can see and rail against the guy with the weird hair at the door breaking it down with a pick axe but some people are ignoring the woodworm undermining the foundations "it's just a bit of woodworm, nothing to worry about. You must be a supporter of the pickaxe guy".
Except its a single woodworm in the garden shed (killed with treatment) vs a marauding horde wielding axes attacking the house.
The real threat to freedom of speech in Universities is managerialism. Things like poor governance with limited academic input, 'bringing the University into disrepute' clauses and gagging when pay offs are made. Most post 92 institutions in the UK don't even have a properly elected academic on the governing body (they use tricks, like academic boards electing an 'academic member' where the committee management demographic dominance always gets them someone friendly). England, Wales and Northern Ireland need something like this: http://www.scottishuniversitygovernance.ac.uk
I emailed you before an example of what can happen in England right now (and it wasn't a single case... its common and increasing), to prove my point, .. its way worse in breach of academic freedom terms than what any University managements can do in the US . University managements in the US set and police any policies, not a foolish illiberal minority of academics. Much of what is complained about I don't really see as illiberal at all: just two political factions moaning about each other, as they should be allowed to.
> Except its a single woodworm in the garden shed (killed with treatment) vs a marauding horde wielding axes attacking the house.
>
"it's just a bit of woodworm, nothing to worry about. You must be a supporter of the pickaxe guy".
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....