Comment by rustynails | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rustynails | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's a disappointing article in that it makes many narrowly focused and unfounded assumptions and one conclusion.

I've recently been doing an indepth study of sexism in Australia starting at 1970.

I've poured over archives (and I'm documenting it) to see how Australia went off the rails with its sexist attitude (eg. Domestic Violence is male only, or a revised false history of voting-who could and when).

What I have noticed is that there were plenty of ads and articles back in the early 70s (eg. One bank advertised its female branch manager with a large photo, quite proudly) that are inclusive, unlike today. TV adverts had plenty of representation in work, sport, etc. watch the "life be in it" as an example.

I know that there was an inclusive attitude back in the early 70s that we have lost. As an example, check out Science Week, aimed at kids, that has several girls only events and competitions. This sort of sexism was unprecedented from 1970-2000 (and possibly earlier). Also add that all of my female ancestors from 1900 onward held good jobs and were largely financially independent (which contradicts the article saying it didn't really happen before 1975). I've never been able to reconcile the modern story compared to my own family's history. It might be luck.

So, the article concluded that the difference is that women can now work. It ignores depression, stress (non financial), Boredom, lack of self-worth etc. if a person defines themself by a career and that career vanishes, it can turn an individual and their family upside down. I'm not surprised the authors focussed on housework and financial independence and ignored almost everything else as it seems to be the modern trend (ala domestic violence is male only).

I'm curious to see if any media outlets in Australia pick up on the blatant sexism of Science Week (targeted at kids). The last 10 years are proving to be the most sexist (by far) that I've ever seen. I'm doing some research by looking at government, education (which is largely government) and media. I will include photos, videos and loads of references - but it's a big job. It will take time when I am committed to work and family too.

Love to see that when you finish it, but why not blog along the way?

Aiming STEM programs at girls isn't sexist. That just isn't what "sexist" means. Those programs exist to correct an imbalance caused by actual sexism.

Aiming STEM programs at girls isn't sexist. That just isn't what "sexist" means.

To the contrary, it perfectly fits the dictionary definition: Discrimination on the basis of gender.

It happens to be a form of discrimination which is (generally) considered to be acceptable since it is aiming to ameliorate a disadvantaged group; but it is discrimination nonetheless. The relevant question isn't "is this sexist", but rather "is this sexist in a way that society does not condone".

You might say that programs that encourage girls are "discriminatory" in some pedantic sense, but they don't keep boys from learning about math and science, nor do they discourage boys from going into STEM fields.

The difference between this and actual sexism is that sexism discourages and systematically excludes people, typically girls/women, based on gender. Programs that target girls do nothing at all to discourage boys, because no one is saying, "These kinds of activities, careers, etc are only for girls now."

Generally speaking, when any disadvantaged group gets together to discuss issues and take action on issues affecting them, they are not being racist, sexist, etc.

> Those programs exist to correct an imbalance caused by actual sexism.

Is the new statistical model: "Correlation not equal to causation unless it agrees with my politics"?

It depends on your definitions. If you subscribe to the "prejudice + power" model that is common in social studies these days, then no, it's not sexist.

Most people don't, however, and interpret the word in its more traditional sense, which is "discriminatory on the basis of sex or gender". And in that sense, yeah, it is very much sexist. Arguably justifiable on the "lesser evil" basis, in that it tries to affect the outcomes in way that negates other (unjustified) sexism elsewhere in the system. But nevertheless, from this perspective, the fact that you have to discriminate is bad, and the ideal state of affairs is where it's not necessary (i.e. there's no sexism elsewhere to mitigate).

> Those programs exist to correct an imbalance caused by actual sexism.

But the evidence of sexism is the existence of the imbalance. This whole thing is circular.

Watch out: don't be tripped up by semantics. The two of you are using different definitions of the word "sexism".

My mother was a teacher in Australia in the early '70s. Her pay rate was 2/3rds that of male teachers, simply because of her gender.

> I've never been able to reconcile the modern story compared to my own family's history.

Look up the term 'anecdata'. You really need to look at things at a demographic level, not just "well, my family...".

You prefaced an attack on anecdata with... "anecdata"

The original poster also didn't really say anything about pay inequality. Just, that women ancestors were financially independent.

Also

> Also add that all of my female ancestors from 1900 onward held good jobs and were largely financially independent (which contradicts the article saying it didn't really happen before 1975).

So rustynails may have trend data for at least the women in their family. And all of them had good jobs and were financially independent? Another data point, is those 80s lego ads featuring girls with their creations. So maybe there is something going on here and society as gone off the rails regarding sexism.

Blog your research rustynails.

Confirmation bias again, though. Lego ads had girls in them? Cool. Now, how many politicians were women? How many managers or other people in authority? How seriously were women's opinions taken in the media? Were there extra hurdles to overcome for a woman who wanted to start her own business?

It sounds like it's just a project to look for specific counter-examples, rather than a proper gestalt look at society as it was.

And really, if you want to tell if 'society has gone off the rails', pretend (if you aren't already) that you're a minority, a woman, or gay, and then ask "Would I rather be living in today's society, or that of the 50s and 60s?".

Yes. Masterful, wasn't it? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com