undefined | Better HN

0 pointscomputerex8y ago0 comments

You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark.

Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence.

The author's point about societies with the most gender equity having bigger gender gaps really drives this point home. In societies where there is gender equity, people aren't compelled to behave a certain way and instead gravitate towards the roles they really want to take.

Real, verifiable, reproducible truths are not sexist or racist. They are truths. The fact that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people#Sport dominate sprinting is supported by empirical evidence and also science.

So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race. These terms shouldn't be used to describe real, empirically shown gender or race differences.

We as humans are all equal in worth, but that doesn't mean we are all the same.

0 comments

alkonaut8y ago

> Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning.

That's not a definition I have seen anywhere.

The usual definition is that it's "prejudice, sterotyping or discrimination based on someones gender".

If we have different definitions of sexism to begin with, of course we aren't going to agree on whether X is sexist.

So if I don't use the controversial S word: I thought his post was stereotyping and coming out against anti discrimination efforts.

> So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race.

Same again: something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.

dustinmoris8y ago

What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, where people take words of someone else and completely flip it around and claim something terrible which did not happen.

> something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.

Of course it is! Seriously listen to yourself! If I say "The average 20 year old healthy person will be able to climb this mountain faster than the average 80 year old healthy person" then it is a fact based on science and DOES NOT make me a ageist, or does it? Now apply the same logic to the previous topic and listen to yourself again.

alkonaut8y ago

I only said that something being factually true does not necessarily protect it from being racist or sexist when used in argument or action.

I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false.

Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though)

I'll quote an oxford writer:

> Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra...

His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.

MarkMc8y ago

I think the problem is that 'sexist' and 'stereotyping' are loaded terms which imply bad behaviour.

Imagine I'm creating a basketball team and I reason that height is an advantage for players and men tend to be taller than women, so I will not aim to have 50% women on the team. By your definition I'm being sexist, but my attitude doesn't deserve the opprobrium that that label implies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscomputerex8y ago0 comments

You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark.

Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence.

We as humans are all equal in worth, but that doesn't mean we are all the same.

0 comments

alkonaut8y ago

> Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning.

That's not a definition I have seen anywhere.

The usual definition is that it's "prejudice, sterotyping or discrimination based on someones gender".

If we have different definitions of sexism to begin with, of course we aren't going to agree on whether X is sexist.

So if I don't use the controversial S word: I thought his post was stereotyping and coming out against anti discrimination efforts.

> So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race.

Same again: something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.

dustinmoris8y ago

> something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.

alkonaut8y ago

I only said that something being factually true does not necessarily protect it from being racist or sexist when used in argument or action.

Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though)

I'll quote an oxford writer:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra...

MarkMc8y ago

I think the problem is that 'sexist' and 'stereotyping' are loaded terms which imply bad behaviour.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse