It's not the right forum to express this evidence/conclusions. It's insensitive, and entirely without empathy. People have good reason to be upset.
- Conference talks
- Essays posted to libertarian blogs
- Private corporate memos written after feedback was explicitly requested
Probably others.
The same thing was said in every case: "it's not the right forum, it's insensitive and without empathy".
How incredibly surprising that there doesn't seem to be any right forum or right time for expressing opinions about anti-male bias. Somehow it's always offensive and it's always terrible that women were upset.
It looks almost as if some people want to shut that conversation down wherever it happens.
I was very outspoken in the wake of James Damore being fired from Google, because I think there was a reasonable narrative in there somewhere, even though some of the science was flawed. I still don't think firing the guy was the right response. To my mind his ideas were respectfully presented and weren't phrased in absolutes. There could have been a great conversation around gender in Google as a result.
But this is different to that. This is somebody writing off a large group's experience, supported by poor science, in an area he knows nothing about, at a conference for the express purpose of supporting women. I don't want to shut down conversation, but I sure want to condemn people who can't be respectful of others.
One right place would have been the room where the anti-male/pro-female responsibility was decided. Now that the decision is through, it's just bickering and not constructive to oppose it, ignoring it denigrating it in public as if that was outside the assumed responsibility for the forum (the institution).
Presenting data and drawing conclusions is fine. You just don't have to be a dick about it.
But honestly I wouldn't have so much of a problem if he presented the same thing anywhere other than a conference for encouraging women into science. If I were any one of those women, I would have walked away discouraged and hurt.
But I think the question you're asking is: am I critical of him because it's fashionable today to push feminism with blinkers on? And would I still do so in 50 years, if today he sparked a mens' rights revolution?
Let's not assign this guy mythical status preemptively. There have always been loud points of view; some of them haven't held up with time, others have. We usually forget the ones that haven't, unless they managed to really hurt people along the way. To put it another way, just because you take a loud contrary position on a political or social issue, doesn't mean you're right.
I actually do applaud him for standing up for something, but my admiration only goes that far. You can present your point of view while trying to minimize the collateral damage. You can also be aware of your own fallibility.
If Galileo burst into Catholic prayer to proclaim the church was wrong and he was right, yeah, I'd call him a bit of a dick. What does he hope to achieve, by choosing the forum that is most disrespectful of others?
This guy has the same problem - you will always just tell him he’s in the wrong place.
You're probably right Galileo didn't have a platform, but you're the one drawing that comparison, not me. Do you really think he has the same problem, in the age of the Internet? In another comment below I've suggested other, more respectful, platforms: "Blogs/journals/conferences not specifically for supporting women/editorials/radio shows/record a podcast. Write a manifesto for crying out loud."