undefined | Better HN

0 pointsralusek6y ago0 comments

You're doing precisely what I described. If women are not in a field, it must therefore be that the field is not open to women. If there is a lack of seniority, it must therefore be due to a bias in promotions.

0 comments

JoeAltmaier6y ago

...and you're doing precisely what I described, saying its all ok because (?) men win? women don't want that career? we assume promotions are fair (citation!) because, again, men always win and (?)

ralusekOP6y ago

You've attempted to claim my position as one that states that

1.) population outcomes being different are okay because men win

2.) population outcomes are different because women don't want certain careers

3.) promotions are fair

The problem is that I didn't make any of those points, nor do I believe them.

You can't make the case that our arguments are symmetrical, because they're not. Yours is an assertion, mine is a claim of insufficient evidence to substantiate your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I'm not making the claim that all population outcomes are the result of biology and everything is perfectly fair, you seem to just believe that this is my claim. What I'm actually saying is that I have a problem with an ideological position which assumes in the absence (or sometimes in the presence of) alternative explanations for why populations arrive at different outcomes, there is a tendency to be satisfied with a de facto position stating that outcomes are necessarily due to sociological forces, specifically patriarchy/sexism/racism. I'm saying that this is a totally unjustifiable position to work off of as a baseline. Working backwards from default conclusions, particularly when it comes to things that are as complicated as this, is not an acceptable strategy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse