BBC Admits Its Famous ‘Women Write Better Code’ Story Was Fake News
heatst.com
heatst.com
The BBC overhyped a bit of research - this happens constantly with research. They take a study, misrepresent it's findings a little and make it sound bigger than it is. Doesn't make it right, but it's hardly 'fake news'. The story was reporting on a study that happened, and the content was - if a little quick to jump to conclusions - based on reality.
The article has been corrected to "Github coding study suggests gender bias" - while different, clearly it's the same underlying story.
Meanwhile, this article casually claims that the original title is wrong - not just an unsubstantiated claim:
> While this is a possible conclusion, it is far from being the only, or in this case, the most accurate one.
They claim there is a more accurate conclusion, which is...
> In fact, the study authors themselves later admitted that they had left out a pretty crucial point from their analysis: their data also revealed that women coders are in fact “harder on other women than they are on men.”
This is a point that doesn't refute the core idea, nor is it a conclusion to replace the given one, it's just another bit of data which the article appears keen to promote as though it is particularly important. Presumably because the author thinks this is some kind of 'men vs women' war and that 'women do it too' makes anything OK.
Don't get me wrong, the original study has issues - without knowing how many pull requests 'should' have been approved (which is probably impossible to judge well), it's hard to say the meaning of increased rejections - maybe more rejections show better code because it is structure so that flaws are more obvious to a reader?
Clearly, the original reporting of it has issues too - but this article seems drummed up to create anger. Unless you are getting equally angry at the other exaggerated research articles in equal measure, it seems targeted.
Edit:
Also on this website "Feminist Mother Rejects Infant Son Because of His Gender". This article talks about the piece "Having a son went from a dilemma to being the most valuable lesson of my life" - which talks about a mother who imagined having a daughter, found out she was having a son, and talks about the fear she had realising she was going to have to explain about feminism and women's issues, which she didn't know how to do. She then goes on to explain she got past this fear (before he was born) and resolved on how to teach him. The article from this site, however, talks about rejection and child abuse, makes her out to be a crazy woman that hates men - totally unfounded.
I suggest reading both to see how much they twist that one:
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-mother-rejects-infa...
vs
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/havin...
It's another example, to me, of a "counter SJW" movement that only ever seems to invent enemies. The only place I have ever seen or heard these 'crazy extremist feminists' they claim are everywhere is in the odd forum thread, hardly a real issue. Instead, it's mostly crazy interpretations of normal pieces dressed up to install a fear in men that women are somehow out to get them - not unlike the Daily Mail straight-white-christian-man fear that seems to have driven brexit/trump.
You invent an enemy (the linked article, "anti-SJW"), and then attempt to "brush off" what is clearly a misleading and likely agenda-fueled article, which as per the MSM definition is "fake news.
Also be aware that your "brush-off" and "oh it's not that bad" argument is identical to "sexists" claiming the "wage gap" doesn't exist...the very people you clearly are opposed to by the sounds if it.
My issue is that they examine this one case in isolation in a way that is clearly meant to be misleading. I am not 'inventing an enemy' - please go look at the other posts on that site - there is a continual drip of articles about feminism, making feminists out to be crazy and aggressive, all of them highly misleading.
This is just another example. Instead of 'oh look, another story where a journalist finds a bit of research and publishes with a massively overstated headline' it's 'those feminists are at it again, trying to trick us!'. They could have picked out a ton of these stories, or focused on the issue of research in general, but instead they pick this one because it suits their message.
You can ignore the context completely, but it's clear what this is in context. If a paper constantly put on giant pictures of convicted black people (and only black people) on the front page with gory descriptions of what they did, we would call that out, because while technically true, it's clearly misleading.
Likewise, this site constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists are some kind of boogeyman out to get you is attempting to push an agenda, and that context matters when judging this article.
I'm not saying "it's not that bad" - it's a real issue. I'm saying that it's not as bad as the article portrays, because it portrays it without the wider context that this happens all the time with all sorts of research.
Fake news is a term I hate because it's so easy to throw around. I don't really like it being used by any 'side', because it doesn't help. Just as with the 'fake news' itself, calls of 'fake news' just get brushed off with "mine can't possibly be, I trust this source".
The solution, as always, should be making the damn point about why it's wrong. Yes, getting people to listen is a problem, but falling back on screaming a catch-phrase doesn't seem like it'll help more.
What's misleading here? Are you saying there are as many poor articles that are "anti-feminist" than "pro-feminist"?
I'd argue that a publication like the BBC would be a lot more careful about offending feminists, but I admit this is speculative.
Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is literally the demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming this article invokes (wrt feminists).
"constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists are some kind of boogeyman" - Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.
In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here?
> Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is literally the demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming this article invokes (wrt feminists).
No, it's not, because we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men. That's not exactly news, we know that's the case, just as we know that minorities still suffer from a time we had racism built into our laws and culture. There are real problems there.
> Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.
Yes, and I'm sure there are a few crazies out there who truly hate men, or want crazy shit that doesn't make sense - but they are few and far between, and don't represent mainstream feminism. This site is clearly attempting to paint normal, mainstream feminism as that crazy kind to get people to reject it.
> In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here?
It's not - the issue is that a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues. I have absolutely no problem with talking about men's issues - they are real, are a problem, and affect me personally, as I'm a man. That said, whenever feminists bring up issues, you get the counter cry of "what about men", which sounds reasonable in the way that the "all lives matter" counter does - sure, we care about gender equality, not just women.
The issue is that there are more issues that more deeply affect just women, like there are for minorities in the race issue. The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices.
Yes, it's hard, because some of the people saying "I care about men's rights" have no intention of doing so to 'counter' feminism, but it's hard to tell and you get kneejerk responses on both sides. It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists, not people who actually care about the issue without other agendas.
Yes, there are unreasonable people on all sides of this, as with pretty much everything. However, the reality is that discrimination and disadvantage is still more widespread for women in our culture, and working to fix that is going to require more effort. This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case, and that mainstream feminism is instead trying to disadvantage and discriminate against men - an accusation that simply doesn't reflect reality.
Just as the average white person is being barraged with the idea that the rights of minorities come at their expense, now sites like this are barraging men with the idea that the rights of women come at their expense. That is a lie designed to pit people against each other, and make us willing to reject the causes fighting for us all to get our basic rights.
No we don't. Much like the interpretation of the pay gap, there's more context. In this case:
"we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men"
Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now?
Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so.
> a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues
Says who?
> there are more issues that more deeply affect just women
Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women.
> The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices.
again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do?
> It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists
The reason people stay away from this label is that it's demonized, leaving only true misogynists who care to use it (I'd liken this to the initial uptake of alternative currencies by criminals).
What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...
> This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case
By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same?
Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?
> the idea that the rights of women come at their expense
This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men?
Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now - culture was formed around it.
Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone.
> Says who?
Me.
> Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women.
I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario, which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future changes and understanding.
> again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do?
You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change that can happen.
> What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...
I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights, not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist), without trying to push down feminism.
I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds.
> By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same?
I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" - it may or may not be reasonable. A quick glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't the article being highlighted here.
> Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?
I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to dismiss that.
> This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men?
Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal. Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of the slave-owner to own them.
This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.
It's not clear, it's just a theory.
I don't know what criteria you have for "solved", but mine, in the context of equality, is "the problem is no worse for men than women", on average - Though definitions of 'sexism' and 'equality' also change, making this a complicated issue (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/1... )
> Saying sexism is a solved issue
I didn't say this, I'd at least define "solved". You claimed various things, the burden of proof is on you.
> is like saying racism is a solved
not really, they are different.
> just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone.
It doesn't mean it isn't gone either; and thus we establish that we cannot infer the current state of society from the historical state of society ( unless you're a fan of Marx ;-> ).
> I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss
No I didn't, i just gave examples illustrating my point. There's little else for me to do since you didn't give any examples yourself. Again, you made a claim (issues affecting women more), why not back it up? Or clarify which issues.
> disproportionate affect on women
Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?
> You literally just did it
I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as representative of feminism?
> I don't think the two are at all at odds.
What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?
> I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki"
fair enough.
> the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal
This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have to assume some definition of equality first.
In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little loaded...
> We are not at a point of gender equality yet
Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).
> We are not at a point of gender equality yet
This is over simplistic. There is no linear 'equality' meter justifying specific cases of feminist indifference. Give me examples.
If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face today? On average, our families are equal.
--
this thread is getting a bit unweildy, is there a way to break it up a bit maybe? I wonder if there is a better forum. I seem to remember a while ago someone mentioned a forum they'd made for discussions like this...
Even if it was equivalent, that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's.
> Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?
I mean, why is it suddenly limited to law? Rape clearly disproportionately affects women (more women are raped). Again, this isn't to say there are not men's rights issues (under-reporting of rape, etc...) there too, but that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. It also has outcomes that can't happen to men (pregnancy). It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it). In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels. If you truly think that women are not seriously affected by this issue, you clearly are not looking.
> I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as representative of feminism?
The thing I said after that statement - dismissing feminism as unnecessary and making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.
> What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?
If they do, they are wrong to do so. However, sites like the one this article was on propegate the idea that all feminism (or at least a large part of it) are doing that, when they aren't. The article about the woman's son is an example - they make a reasonable article sound like man-hating nonsense. This is to instil fear and make people reject feminism in a knee-jerk response.
> This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have to assume some definition of equality first.
Equality means people should not be defined by their gender (or anything else like race, etc...), but rather by who they are. Of course reality has differences between genders. If most women are shorter and there is a necessary height requirement to do a job then you will have less women doing the job - but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman. It's simple in concept - not in execution of the law, obviously, but that's besides the point - complexity in enforcement doesn't justify villainizing those trying to improve the situation.
> In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little loaded...
Of course it's loaded, the issue is loaded. There was a time when women were literally property, just like slavery. Just as racism is better, but not solved, the same is true for women's rights.
> Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).
Again - it's not simple in execution. Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split (not to mention the potential for the causes being indirectly the result of sexism themselves). That's just one issue however. It being complicated doesn't mean we should just give up on equality.
> If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face today? On average, our families are equal.
A nonsense example against a strawman argument. I'm not claiming equality means we should just average all wages or something dumb.
The reason you say 'imply' is because I didn't actually say this.
You said they aren't equivalent, and I asked for qualification. The difference is the burden is on you, not me; You can't flip it around and say "Well, prove it isn't".
Demonstrating anything is hard, especially something this broadly stated, which is why I never made any such claims in the first place, and if I had I'd make it a less broad.
But yes, I strongly suspect men and women are equal in many places, but not world wide, or even in all localities, which is again why I don't want to have to prove your generalisation; If I feel I can demonstrate something, I'll narrow down the claim as appropriate.
> There are a ton of studies showing
If you gave a citation, I might be able to get some context from it, e.g country, culture etc. I'm not keen on assuming a universal form of feminism, nor do I assume you need to be a feminist to fight gender inequality (much like you don't need to be religious to be good - "Without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion").
Tell me social calculus you are using to determine that "abortion legislation affects women more than men". Seems to me you need to decide on a very specific definition of "affect".
> If you move beyond the most developed countries
There is little feminism. It's nice to chalk all women's' rights progress up to feminism, more "feminism by the dictionary"; but that's not the same as "feminism the ideology" - that feminism is a very specific culture of beliefs and discourse that isn't necessary or sufficient for the improvement of women's rights. The lack of distinction is on purpose, to make it seem like there is only only set of beliefs compatible with the development of women's rights.
> that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's
That's true, unless "focusing on women's issue" also involves promoting ideologies.
In cases where that ideology is harmful to men, it's more akin to a christian organisation refusing funding for men with HIV.
> why is it suddenly limited to law
The context here is when people say "what about men". in the context of any subject, this is not done to change the topic, but the change the focus of the topic. "what about men" in the context of rape, is in the context of rape law, and how it also affects men.
However, it could also be in the context of prison rape. Maybe that is a worthy topic, but I'd also argue that it is a different topic (prisoners rights/care, and the disproportionate number of men in prison).
> that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant.
Agreed, but I didn't say this. you brought up disproportionate effect.
> It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it).
which society? Can you demonstrate this is a common opinion in modern western countries. I hear this all the time, but have met few people that don't aggressively disagree, or at least have a more nuanced opinion.
> In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels.
Which places, in relative to burden on 'perpetrator'. There are other places where an accusation of rape can be devastating without any burden of proof. Maybe we should be talking specifics?
> making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.
Can you quote me on that? I have a broad view of what constitutes "feminism" (pretty much anything), and a different view on how feminist discourse is often practiced.
> If they do, they are wrong to do so.
No one will yank their feminist credentials though, and people will still equate feminism with good; "it can't be bad, it's feminist". If no one denies harmful groups the feminist label, it can no longer be assumed that feminist groups aren't harmful.
> but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman
Can I be a surrogate then? Or the legal mother of my child? (I'm male, obv)
> There was a time when women were literally property
Not anymore, and not during my lifetime - so what has this got to do with anything?
"there must be some subconscious influence from the past" - or something like that?
> Just as racism is better, but not solved
again, tell me what you mean by "solved".
> Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split
yet the soundbite is repeated, again and again, by respected feminists without any nuance. other feminists do not call out this behavior. It took a lot of effort, by many risking reputation and ridicule, to establish that it was more complicated. Maybe we see different sides of the feminist sphere?
> A nonsense example
Maybe I misinterpreted the following:
> We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.
--
When I have the time, I think I might break some of this down. The linear nature of HN isn't ideal for long threads...
Anything good feminism does isn't really feminism. Anything bad anyone does is. Talking about feminism is therefore bad because it's bad.
Not to mention the circular logic - feminism is bad because she's written an article about encouraging her kids to be feminists which is bad because feminism is bad.
You are picking out little bits of my post and arguing against them, but ignoring the actual points I made.
I'm not going to argue back on each little point because it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make - just noise leading off.
I made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly - this article, and moreso the article linked are designed to make men feel persecuted by extremists feminists when that doesn't reflect the situation.
You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women.
That, I argue, is complete rubbish. Discrimination against women still happens. The article I linked is not anti-man at all, and your arguments that it is don't hold water, and are essentially circular reasoning and 'that's how I see it'.
Please, don't dissect my post and cherry-pick bits to strawman. Stay on topic to the core point.
That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism.
> Not to mention the circular logic
No, the circular logic is in your poor interpretation.
> which is bad because feminism is bad.
This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular.
> ignoring the actual points I made
which are the important ones I ignored? You say a lot that doesn't follow strictly from the points I made, and don't expand on them. If I responded to everything you write I'd be doing a lot of the work; for example, you throw out a load of ungrounded accusations, which I generally ignore.
> made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly
> Stay on topic to the core point.
If you want the thread to stay on topic, then stay on topic yourself. I've generally just responded.
> You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women.
Some feminism. And if you can't see the distinction, then probably your feminism.
> Discrimination against women still happens
This is a low bar. What does it mean? I've stated enough times a need for specific standards for what constitutes "unequal", so what exactly do you mean by this?
> cherry-pick bits to strawman
I can only "cherry-pick to strawman" if I misrepresent your arguments (as a strawman), which did I misrepresent?
And yet you are willing to say anyone teaching what they call feminism to their child is doing wrong because of it.
> This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular.
Then why is feminism bad?
No, try reading what I've written (multiple times now).
> Then why is feminism bad?
certain forms are bad, for whatever makes them bad. At this point, I'm not sure you know the difference between a generalization and an absolute statement.
But that the viewpoint here is 'reasonable' is your opinion, not fact.
You disagree with me about the viewpoint being reasonable - sure. I think you are horribly wrong. The viewpoint makes sense, and I have explained why I think that. She is explaining her struggle in dealing with explaining feminism and dealing with sexism to her future son, given she was never a young boy and doesn't know it. You haven't explained how you got to that being unreasonable except implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.
> implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.
Then maybe your interpretation is wrong. It seems you ignore specific things I write, and just respond to you own assumptions.
You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that. I have tried to work it out (the only way I can make sense of your position is if you think feminism is inherently bad) - and you claim that's not it. If you have a real reason then tell me. Why is my interpretation wrong? How does the other article's read make any sense after reading the original article?
Discrimination against women is an element of many ideologies.
No it isn't. An ideology is a specific thing.
belief in god is common among (specific) religions, but theism isn't a religion
> Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is
Is the implication that feminism == anti-(female)-discrimination? sounds a lot like argument by dictionary definition.
If this is what feminism is, or "discrimination" was strictly, and uncontroversially defined; a lot less would be able to bear that label.
> Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion
This is correct, To make others share that opinion you need to convince them
> My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say
And if you argued that, and people are convinced, then they would share your opinion. But there would be a lot of assumptions that are also your opinion that you would need to convince them of along the way - that "feminism" is the same as some definition of discrimination/unfairness, say.
> Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant
It's not a "nit", you analogy is totally misapplied. It only applied correctly according to a personal, unshared definition of "feminism", so what use is it if it depends upon another assumption? You must first convince someone of the assumption, before they'll accept another premise based on it.
> you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'.
I doubt anyone but us two are still reading at this point. And I get less and less out of this.
The more it continues, the more you throw out vague claims, premises and accusations, without further clarification of previous points; the accusation that I am motivated by 'point-scoring' for example, without any illustrative examples, or explanation.
> You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that
The author assumes a demon-haunted world. At the beginning of this thread we discussed that, and it seems we disagree on the facts. That's why.
That said, it's not useful to assume my position in the way you describe, or at least be more diligent in doing so: "feminism is inherently bad" is a position directly contradicted by things I've said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06...
>Doesn't make it right, but it's hardly 'fake news'.
>The article has been corrected to "Github coding study suggests gender bias" - while different, clearly it's the same underlying story.
Clearly, except the majority of "readers" aren't even going to read the underlying story. The "fake news" here is the misleading title of the story, which is going to be the only information/narrative evaluated by most readers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the BBC were right in this case, but the difference between the reality and the headline was not as far as many, it was corrected (very slowly), and the conclusion wasn't something they created, but drawn from the paper.
None of that makes it right, but it's worth asking why is this the particular example of 'fake news' this site wants to point out? The clear answer is because they want to imply that the opposite is true, or that anyone suggesting good things about women must be wrong.
Arguably, if what they are saying is right, it shouldn't matter what the source is, except this article is overblown for the matter at hand, doesn't address the wider issue of this happening with papers all of the damn time (with papers of all types), and has some obviously leading segments designed to imply stuff.
This article is obviously a small part of their agenda to scare and infuriate male readers, by making it look like 'SJWs' are a bigger issue than they are.
A little bit more than that:
> In this patriarchal world, this world where even the best men (and women, for that matter) engage in casual and ingrained sexism, how will I raise a son who respects me the way a daughter would? Who sees women as just like him? As just human beings?
She was already projecting her ideological biases on her unborn son, not just fretting over his education.
Her comments:
> How do you raise a white, middle-class boy not to think his own experience is the default experience of the world?
Clearly imply she was going to raise her son very differently from a potential daughter. Why is the above concern any different from raising girls? "(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)"
> I will point sexism out to him at every turn, and he will never get away with it without being called out
> By having sons, we do feminism a great service
This kid is never going to be left alone.
We know that we are all a little bit sexist, just like we know we are inherently racist. That's a reality of the culture we live in (still affected by a history of heavy sexism and racism) and evolution (where different == bad and gender roles were necessary).
She is worrying about the very hard issue of how you deal with that. It's incredibly hard to inspect and manage your own biases. You are projecting malice onto her that doesn't exist in the article.
> Clearly imply she was going to raise her son very differently from a potential daughter. Why is the above concern any different from raising girls? "(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)"
Of course - because we know that there is a difference in how the world treats boys and girls (to the advantage and disadvantage both ways, in different amounts on different issues). This is the classic 'by noticing sexism or trying to change it you are sexist' argument. Clearly it is a difficult thing to understand the differences between your viewpoint and experience of the world and other people - she is talking about how to help her son with that, and it is going to be different for a boy over a girl.
> This kid is never going to be left alone.
Kids are never left alone! The point of parenthood is to support them and pass on the knowledge they need to succeed in life. You simply think that feminism is a bad thing to teach a child when it isn't.
Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn.
> 'by noticing sexism or trying to change it you are sexist' argument
No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born?
We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son.
> it is going to be different for a boy over a girl
So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men?
All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it.
> You simply think that feminism is a bad thing to teach a child when it isn't
There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with.
this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting.
I'm not American. You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies.
> No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? > We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son.
What? So you are saying because the child hasn't experienced sexism yet because it isn't born, planning for it to experience it and how to handle that is worthless? That makes no sense.
> So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men?
I imagine so - but she has experience being a girl as a child, and so it's going to be easier for her to teach a girl about the issue. The article was about her struggle to understand how she was going to do that with a boy - a situation she is unfamiliar with.
> All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it.
The article is literally all about how she is worried about being able to teach someone (her son) when she hasn't lived that perspective. That's literally the point of the piece - her trying to understand how she'll teach her son about this aspect of the world.
> There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with.
Are you really arguing we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. It's not an argument that somehow the idea is invalid.
Feminism has a definition, and it doesn't involve discriminating against men.
> this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting.
You seem to think that assuming your child will have to deal with sexism is in some way judging it - that's not true. We all deal with it in some way or another, this is just a good parent trying to prepare their child and educate them. They aren't blaming the child or "interpreting it's behaviour in bad faith" - they are talking about how to educate about an issue.
You just want to paint all feminists as crazy, and then use that as an excuse in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad. It's horseshit. Sexism is real. Feminism is a force for good in the majority form it's encountered.
You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification.
> planning for it to experience it
The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism.
> I imagine so
I don't.
> That's literally the point of the piece
It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway.
> we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning?
Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad"
Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term.
> I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true.
I disagree, there are plenty of fields that are more discriminating wrt their membership, and more objective in their knowledge base.
How many 'mathematicians' would agree that 1 + 1 = 3 in set of integers?
I'm not saying that feminist technically don't always agree, I'm saying they often don't agree. There isn't enough internal critique to ensure that kind of consistency.
> Feminism has a definition
Shame it's not adhered to - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Femi...
> We all deal with [sexism] in some way or another
Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism?
> trying to prepare their child and educate them
It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination.
> You just want to paint all feminists as crazy
No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement.
> in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad
what I wrote:
> this type of feminism is bad
doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".
I'm not being specific because I'm talking about a general thing. You are the one claiming that people worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it is wrong. Introspecting on your own biases is important if we want to stop sexism and racism. Google for studies (first results: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1), there are tons. Subconscious bias is hardly a contentious point.
> The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism.
"interfere" - you mean teach. That's what we do with children. You say they have a low bar - and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' because you don't think it's important enough to care about.
> I don't > It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway.
Then you are misreading the article - intentionally or not - and coming away afraid from a message that is not in any way harmful to men.
> Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad"
So we agree then - this site that is clearly out to try and paint Feminism as bad is wrong.
> Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term.
Except it's not ambiguous, I have explained what I am talking about multiple times. You claim that most feminists deviate from that, which is exactly the fear I am talking about. Most feminists are reasonable - you and others like you just paint them as crazy by misrepresenting their points (see the article).
> Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism?
Are only victims the ones that need to know about an issue? Are women the only victims of sexism? Are men who are sexist not hurt by their own sexism in some way? Are men who's loved ones are victims of sexism not hurt in some way? Your question is stupid on a number of levels. Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism.
> It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination.
Sure, and fundamental christian nutjobs would call an education in science indoctrination. You just disagree with the facts of the matter.
> No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement.
Your takeaway from that article was completely unjustified. It's clear - intentionally or not - you have, in at least one instance (which is all I can say about you personally), twisted a feminist's words in order to be outraged at what she is saying and imply it's wrong.
> doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".
Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article - you like to pretend it's a subset of only the extremists, but it isn't. You think it's wrong for a mother to teach her child about sexism, which is an attack on feminism in general.
> Google for studies
Googling is not research. But in any case, you seem to be speaking so generally, but the original comment was "We know that we are all a little bit sexist" - what motivated this? Give one good example.
> you mean teach
or indoctrinate. Are these facts or opinions? A child will see the world for itself, it's the interpretational framework that is being 'taught', and this depends on the objectivity of the teacher.
The problem with teaching children is that lack skepticism towards their sources - "get 'em while they're young".
> and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts'
Maybe. But if it doesn't 'count' as sexism, then it isn't sexism.
> Then you are misreading the article
Tell the field of lit-crit that :-)
> Most feminists are reasonable
Can you demonstrate this? If it where true, wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists be called out more. Wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists have less influence?
If you are in the majority, it's a silent majority - "Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60m died."[0]
> Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism
and we also need an objective, and equally applied definition of sexism. Not one that is "historically defined".
> You just disagree with the facts of the matter.
indeed. Hence our differing perspectives are perhaps entirely consistent.
> you have twisted a feminist's words
Maybe. but when you speak in generalities, you only have past behavior and implied intent to go on.
> Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article
your type? I'm not sure it's all feminism at all.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/18/islamo...
Yes, it is. That was the point of the article - but you are so scared of the feminists coming and pushing you down you have dreamed up some crazy interpretation of it.
> Googling is not research.
No, but it's a good place to start.
>the original comment was "We know that we are all a little bit sexist" - what motivated this? Give one good example.
Things like http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract - there are a lot of studies that show doing a lot of things as men and as women result in higher acceptance rate of women if gender isn't known. We know that historically and culturally we have gender roles pushed on us. It is worth inspecting when you are making decisions that affect others if you have bias.
> Can you demonstrate this? If it where true, wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists be called out more. Wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists have less influence?
There aren't enough of them and they have so little influence that is rare. People do call them out when they pop up online in forums and stuff, which is about the extent you see them. You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner.
Show me the policies that are being implemented by these radical feminists you claim have so much influence and are so common. Show me the articles in respected publications espousing pushing men down to pull women up. It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem, that's why it's not being 'called out more'.
> and we also need an objective, and equally applied definition of sexism. Not one that is "historically defined".
History informs the present. I've given my definition of sexism, you have a problem with it?
> your type? I'm not sure it's all feminism at all.
It is. You have constructed this fantasy of the feminist oppressors as extremists because it allows you to feel persecuted, and allows you to ignore everything - as long as you aren't going around raping people and telling women to make sandwiches for you, you can't be sexist!
If you say so...
> No, but it's a good place to start.
Not really. A search engine brings you what you are looking for, and can be easily biased by many factors, including the popularity and phrasing implications of a question
> Things like [this]
This study applies to one context. Many studies only apply to many contexts. You need at least one study applying to the universal context, i.e on a random selection of the population, to prove it of society in general.
More hand waving "lot of studies" - are these studies representative? Many studies are performed in certain areas because there is a previous suspicion of bias there. Many studies focus on gender due to the popularity of the subject, when in fact the biases exist due to correlations with other factors (wealth, education, etc) or the narrow focus of the study (high earners, but not low earners); so even studies that show sexual "bias" needn't imply unfairness or sexism if either the relevant factor isn't sex (just something that correlates), or if the underlying cause isn't unfair (by some definition).
Incidentally, social science, and in particular the field of psychology, have had issue reproducing results, e.g http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full.pdf
> they have so little influence that is rare
> You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner.
Given what you consider reasonable, this maybe begs the question. I think maybe your "crazy" is a straw feminist that you have already counted yourself as not being one.
> Show me the articles
Any article covering the wage gap with the implication that "something must be done"
> It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem
Not to feminists, no.
> you have a problem with it?
Yes, it assumes what that influence is without evidence
>> I'm not sure it's all feminism at all.
>It is
Well, here's hoping for an enlightened fourth-wave then. That said, #notallwomen #notyourshield
> You have constructed..
whatever you say, doc
You call it hand-waving, but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists. You focus on the wage gap, but that's just one argument people make - and just because some people interpret the data wrongly (expecting 1:1 to be the right outcome, disregarding the difference in common career paths), that doesn't make it entirely wrong (sexism could still be a factor - it's hard to tell), and it doesn't make it malicious or the whole of feminism somehow invalid.
I see plenty of discussion about that, and I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard.
Yes, amazingly there are people who call themselves feminists and are wrong, like with anything. If we had a site that was citing the wage gap, demanding 1:1 pay regardless of situation, etc... I would be onboard with calling it wrong.
That doesn't magically make a site tarnishing feminists with legitimate arguments and aims as wrong. That article was reasonable unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong, which implies that feminism is inherantly wrong, not just potentially in the wrong hands.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...
Again, please expand; where did I move the goalpost?
> It's not possible to show something like sexism universally
It might be, it'd just be hard. I assume from the above you are accepting I was right?
> but you are the one hand-waving away the evidence we have that sexism exists
This isn't what 'hand waving' in the former context means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
The burden is on you to provide evidence for your overly general statements.
> that's just one argument people make
I picked that as a good example. Do you have a better one?
> that doesn't make it entirely wrong
It doesn't make what wrong? The wage gap? ok - but I never claimed it was - there is no evidence it is a problem, and by default we don't act on things that are not wrong. Sexism can, and to some degree will, be a factor; The question is what can be shown by reasonable analysis, as opposed to ideological rhetoric.
I think you are the one moving the goalposts here. You appear to have gone from "sexism definitely exists, we are all a little sexist" to "we don't know sexism doesn't exist".
> or the whole of feminism somehow invalid
Please stick to the things I said. This is the second time I'm saying this now. you are the one making generalizations here.
> I don't see people trying to force through 1:1 as the standard
Yet, it's the wage gap "problem" than inspires things like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gen...
> unless you think teaching a child about feminism is wrong
I'm going to stop arguing this because I think you are being willfully ignorant. I clearly don't thing "teaching a child about feminism" is the correct characterisation, nor accept your "implication" (I've said twice now I believe the feminism shown here not to be "all" feminism) so repeatedly trying to frame it like this is not productive.
If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong, and you don't think all feminism is bad, how can you possibly defend that? I'm simply trying to make your argument make sense, not putting words in your mouth.
You are denying everything while making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism. You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable, I'm trying to work out why that is.
No I'm not; or quote me on it.
> If you don't think teaching children about feminism is wrong
I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries.
> You are denying everything
if by 'everything' you mean the specific, broadly applied claims you've made; and by 'denying' you mean ask for qualification, then yes.
> making the assertion I'm wrong to say that site is attempting to create a fear of feminism
I've said why I think it is wrong.
> You are refusing to explain why you think their content is reasonable
No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.
Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad.
> I've said why I think it is wrong.
No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable.
> No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different.
That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.