Feminism

Reasonably serious discussion
421

I think you’re at cross purposes with the author, Lou.

He’s taking an abstracted and purely intellectual approach.

He doesn’t want to consider the individual(s). Because he acknowledges that individuals are different from the average.

He’s abstracted everything to the average because that is where his beef with Google’s policy lies.

He acknowledges the overlap between the sexes, identifies that some of the differences are small, but insists that Google cannot force equality on a notional a 50/50 split.

Just to be clear, as I mentioned before the only area where I am in complete agreement with him is that some IT roles require exceptional systemising skills and that those skills are more often found in males.

422

if you didn’t get that opinion from A Woman, then it doesn’t count.

423

Can’t understand why you can’t see it.

Now I want some for my tea, with icecream and sprinkles and lashings of ginger beer

424

We can not escape the fact that biologically there are genetically evolved behaviours (nature v nurture, instinct are no longer used in terms of scientific evaluation of behaviour) which are then combined with ‘learned’ behaviours that determine how both men and women are ‘driven to behave’. The fact that many men are arseholes is genetic. The roots are in the anisogamy concept that has driven the evolution of our secondary sexual characteristics - ultimately how assertive/aggressive, driven we is a biproduct of this…

Male behaviour is all about being top dog because they are only limited in our reproductive success by the number of females that they can impregnate. Females are limited in their reproductive success by the numbe rof offspring they can deliver in a reproductive lifespan… so for males it all about fighting off the competition, and for females its all about being much more selective for the best… Our emotional evolution has also been selected for since there has in the past been greater chance of survival of offspring when 2 or more adults support the offspring … and we are invested in them genetically…

So what relevance is all this? well for me we should really not be frightened of acknowledging differences between males and females… what we should be careful of is generalising and assuming that sex defines our behaviours, physiology and psychology… it does not, but it does influence how we all behave… but its a big combination of factors. … What is more important is ensuing equal opportunity.

However, from a personal perspective, I must admit I struggle with those that seem so driven in career terms to the exclusion of a life be they male or female. Mainly because I suspect this career drive is the new substitute for being ‘top dog’. Money and economic success are the new ‘alphas’ and the characteristic behaviours to get there are not always those that are most pleasent… In my book its the ‘arsehole gene’ and because of the anisogamy, it tends to be more prevalent in males than females but is not exclusive to one or the other - its the gene that causes fights, wars, anger, and drive and ambition in its softer side… These folks tend to measure their life success in terms of what positions of power and influence they attained…how much wealth they accumulated is often secondary but linked… in some respects its the phenotypic expression of the genes that drive help achieve reproductive success…played out in a world where teh numbe rof offspring has been replaced by $$$… Personally, I am hoping to measure life success by how decent, compassionate and kind my chldren grow up to be (where this can be influenced) and what contribution I can make to society, not what I can earn from it.

(NB. This should not be confused with a desire to learn and develop new skills, and the resultant rewards that should come with this in the work place… If you have to work, then its natural that we want rewards that reflect our effort, experience and dedication… but we all know the type of backstabbing selfish arseholes at work both male and female that I am referring to above…)

I always saw feminism as a vehicle for delivering equality. Not to try and rewrite our biology, genetic or phenotypic. Males and females are different and that should always be celebrated… its that bastard arsehole gene we want to try and eradicate.

425

Wish I could figure out how to tidy up quotes on the new site deisgn…maybe I just need a man :lou_wink_2:

But - I think he’s taking a abstract and what he understands as science driven approach (not sure about intellectual?), and adding a layer of his own interpretation. But as I said before, he’s coming up with answers to the wrong questions. His view is - Google can’t achieve what they set out to achieve, based on this evidence. I say he’s looking in the wrong places to answer that question, and placing over emphasis on one part of this research. I’m not saying consider individuals as part of the approach - I’m saying change the approach.

1 Like
426

cousin.

2 Likes
427

I’m still seeing strawberry flavour jelly…

428

:blush:

1 Like
429

Oi @btripz one of them can bring the refreshments though.

1 Like
430

Hey Bletch, if you can ignore my crass and insensitive, albeit quite funny (imo) contribution to this debate. There’s no real consensus of gender bias in favour of men being naturally more disposed to maths and computing. Even so, the guy that was fired from Google made some outrageous comments, that have been seized upon by Breitbart and Twitter as well. He’s now a hero to the sexist, pasty faced freaks at 4 Chan.

1 Like
431

Also the high functioning Autism … “Rainman” is a very rare occurance

https://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk/understanding-autism/about-autism/myths-about-autism

432

Eugenics was a real thing in the start of the last century. Aldous Huxley etc. It’s bad science.

433

Whatever happened to Fatso?

2 Likes
434

Unfortunately the conversations about ‘biology’ and ‘nature over nuture’ are so skewed, to the point they become the dominant narrative (makes sense, fits my experiences of women not being good at this!), that women don’t really have a chance. It’s hard to explain if you haven’t experienced it, but if you’re drip fed the notion that women aren’t naturally as good at some things as men (and these ideas come at you from every angle on a daily basis and from a very young age - whether football forums, parents, employers) it’s kind of inevitable that they will influence your life decision making. Never mind that it’s contested research! And never mind all the other barriers (eg. boys club!) that women have to face every day.

2 Likes
435

I think even that article overestimates it.

The stats I’ve seen are that are less than 50 autistic savants like Rainman in the world.

And Rainman is a Hollywood myth, the real Rainman (Kim Peek upon who Hoffman based his portrayal) has many more of the typical challenges that ASD face (verbal, social, empathy) than the portrayal in the film.

Most savants have incredible challenges on the social/empathising side. Their rare gifts are often accompanied by non-verbal and child-like burdens. Daniel Tammet is perhaps the rarest of autistic savants in that he is able to communicate (very well) and has learned enough social skills to survive.

I really hope that I’ve been very clear in my thoughts on this thread.

The only reason I commented was the narrow set of discussion points brought up by James Dalmore.

I’m not an advocate of the “women-can’t-do-that” school of thought.

I’m just not.

I coach a female school football team and I fielded two girls in a mixed 6-a-side team because they were better than the boys. But I didn’t field 3 because there wasn’t a 3rd girl of sufficient quality to oust a boy.

Re Google I believe that in a highly technical position like the senior coding roles that Google recruits for, if they simply recruited the best candidates based on some form of ‘perfect’ suitability test, they would naturally fill them with more males.

I would not be surprised if the top score or even the top several percent of applicants were female.

So it’s not a case of “women-can’t-do-that”. That’s a myth, it’s just that (I believe) more men can.

I don’t know what the percentage split is. In all likeliehood, it could be really narrow (Dalmore makes this point too), but it wouldn’t be 50/50 (IMO).

I brought autism into this debate:

a) because Dalmore references the tension between Systemising/Empathising - that view of the world came out of autism research.

b) because roles in technology are full of people with an over emphasis of systemising skills over empathy skills - our traditional notion of the awkward geek is exactly that.

c) because super-bright individuals, the like of which Google attracts for its most complex roles are often diagnosed, or undiagnosed autistic - most often Asperger’s syndrome.

d) Autism diagnoses are 4 times greater in males than females.

Lou makes an excellent point about how attitudes like mine (even hopefully passively expressed) will hold back women in tech (and other) roles still further. She is right, but I hope it’s OK to put thoughts like this forward.

I’ve got to run now, but I’d like to say that I work in a Primary school (with autistic children) and I work in a team of 9 women. I am the only man. The female teachers outnumber the males probably 4:1 (and our school has an exceptionally high ratio of men I believe). On a daily basis I experience the “men-can’t-do-that” attitude too. It sucks.

I AM IN NO WAY EQUATING MY EXPERIENCE TO THAT OF FEMALES OR LESSENING THE REAL PROBLEM THAT FEMALES FACE IN STRIVING FOR EQUAL TREATMENT. I am simply saying I have empathy (see what I did there) with the problem.

2 Likes
436

Bletch - I’ve not taken you in that way at all. I think our discussion was well beyond those basic expectations. And I’ve not felt for a moment you needed to explain your feminist creds.

1 Like
437

He’s a total feminist so is steering clear of this thread lest he undermine his ‘outrage’ credentials.

1 Like
438

Ha! Making feminist comments it definitely not good for upvotes, I can tell ya!

2 Likes
439

For me, the funniest thing about the whole thing is that anti-corporatation, workers rights-advocating, lefty-types are now firmly on board with the ability of a corporation to fire people at will and silencing those who raise issues with their working conditions, whilst supposedly hard-nosed libertarians who want total corporate freedom now want the government to have the ability to intervene with businesses’ staffing practices.

440

Neither’s the other way Lou

1 Like