Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

I suppose that would be true if you think arguments are soldiers in favor of women or against them. You think I believe I raised a +1 for men, while you think I raised a +1 for women by mentioning a time they were victims.

In fact, I believe arguments are attempts to converge to truth. The fact that women were victims in 1631 has no bearing on this discussion.

RoderickDay made an argument that happened to be flawed (here's a more formal argument illustrating the flaws: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence... ), and his argument paralleled the Inquisition's arguments which were flawed for the same reason. Now that his incorrect argument is rejected, we can make better arguments and approach the truth.

View on HN

I think what you were trying to say in your original comment was that "positive" sexism doesn't exist. That the author was being unreasonable when she interpreted her co-worker standing up for her as sexism.

I will assert that such "positive" acts can be and often are sexist. Negative actions can also be sexist. It is possible to take a sexist action while you think you're being helpful. Not all sexism is manifested in malice.

Consider similar racial stereotypes like "Asians are good at math" or "black people are good at sports." You might think that someone is positive, but those beliefs are deeply rooted in racism and racial stereotypes.

I wasn't trying to say this at all. What I was saying is simply that X and !X cannot both be evidence of a hypothesis. If X increases your confidence that Y is true, then !X must reduce your confidence.

If you want to make a more complicated argument as to why these things aren't actually X and !X, do it. But RodericDay wasn't doing that.

There is something called benevolent sexism ...

I am sorry to hear you experienced that.

For those who doubt it: yes "benevolent" sexism (or racism) is real, unfortunately. There are many ways it can manifest itself, but what it always boils down to is someone with the proverbial "good intentions" who decides to treat someone differently, even in a way they think of as positive, for no other reason than because of their sex (or race). It can be particularly poisonous because once you call someone out for being different, even if it is in a way that you believe to be beneficial, it highlights to everyone around them that they are different, which can make them a target.

The best solution is to always strive to treat everyone equally. People are not perfect, so there will be mistakes, but that should nevertheless always be the goal.

indian women being considered "exotic" is one of those..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com