It’s good that Sam Harris isn’t at all smug or condescending.
Sam Harris @SamHarrisOrg · 5h
Alright, fans of pointless controversy, you win. My next blog post will address my alleged sexism and misogyny. #EstrogenVibe
God forbid he should just look at what he’s quoted as saying, and think about it, and realize the implications of it for half of all human beings, and do something other than sneering at people who object. Hell no. Listen up, peons: he had a best-seller, so he is better than you. End of story.
I can hardly wait.
I have popcorn.
but I don’t actually read his blog
still, popcorn
I hate popcorn! It gets stuck in my teeth in a most unladylike fashion.
Also skeptic blogs are kind of just more of a guy thing. I think I might be busy doing some non-confrontational dishes and conveniently unpaid child care.
leni
It’s not the sticking that is the problem, it’s the sucking noises and finger in the mouth that is unladylike.
I think I had a point
… I have crisps, too.
@leni
Just use your estrogen vibes to dislodge the popcorn from your teeth. That’s how estrogen vibes work, right?
I really hope he’ll be addressing my trouble shooting issues with my Estrogen Vibe. It keeps getting stuck on the “strident” setting but I thought it was only supposed to go from Submissive to Politely Non-Confrontational.
So when will we hear he’s doing it for the money, links, twitter, comments?
Greta Christina has a link to a WIN-Gallup survey that finds women are JUST as likely to be atheist as men are, on a world-wide basis.
http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf
Check page 20.
50,000 subjects in 57 countries. Perhaps not absolutely perfect, but a hell of a lot better than Sam Harris’ off-the-cuff claims.
It’s true, HappyNat. Did you know the EstroVibe, can levitate things like a maglev train? Me either until Sam Harris came along, so thanks for the crisps, chigau!
And my teeth are flossed, no unladylaike sucking gestures needed! Damn I love this thing! Does it pick pink berries?
Because holy shit. That is like the one thing I really need done, like every day all day.
I hear the estrogen vibe also draws you to pots and pans instead of cars. I wouldn’t know I can’t stop watching bulldozer videos on youtube.
P.S. The pink berries study is my favorite thing, that I hate.
I’m confused. He must be addressing men, right? That critical posture is intrinsically male; it’s not nurturing, coherence-building ladystuff.
(/sarcasm)
Hey Sam, a word in your shell-like ear?
Do NOT take Twitter tips from Richard Dawkins, mmmmkay?
Be sure to point out to him that he owes you a beer for taking some of the heat off his latest twurd, too.
pointless controversy
Harris is fond of using this cheap rhetorical trick of adjectiving something he wants to attack as “boring” or “tedious” or “pointless” — presumably trying to slant the readers’ interpretation in advance of making his point(s) whatever they may be. I don’t know what that trick is called; I had a philosophy prof in college who used it a lot and it made me want to scream (his trick was to say “Well, obviously, no moral person would hold the view that … “) I guess I’m over-sensitized but when I see that coming, I expect the argument that follows it is going to particulary weak, or a straw man. In disappointing, Harris seldom lets me down.
I think you may be looking for “poisoning the well”, Marcus.
He does have a point. Ophelia has been on anti-Harris fishing expedition lately and the stuff she has found is rather trivial. This may score points with those members of the Skeptic community who don’t like Harris’ position on certain controversial issues (and who expect uniformity of thought in the community). But I fail to see how it serves any productive purpose.
In disappointing, [xxx] seldom lets me down.
nice
We need t-shirts.
Hi Folie Deuce.
Have you ever commented at Pharyngula?
If not, you should give it a try.
(tell them I sent you)
I fail to see how it serves any productive purpose
Yet you saw a productive purpose to your comment? How … surprising.
There is a danger in making trivial accusations of sexism. If everyone is sexist than nobody is sexist.
Chigau, I read Pharyngula but generally avoid the comments section. Uniformity of thought is required there.
“poisoning the well”
Yeah, sort of. But I always interpreted “poisoning the well” as closer to an ad hominem (or a sub-genre of it)…. So I’d say it was poisoning the well if Harris said, “the incredibly boring and disappointing Marcus Ranum commented…” but it’s more like “priming” (as in a psychology experiment) if you throw a few crucial adjectives as you explain your target’s argument, as in: “In another tediously verbose argument, Marcus Ranum commented…” Now it’s not me that’s being attacked it’s my argument. So it’s treading on that line of pretending to be intellectually honest while spin-doctoring someone else’s words.
Folie Deuce
liar
That is amazingly fractally wrong.
If everyone is an asshat then nobody is an asshat?
If everyone punches people in the face, then nobody punches people in the face?
If everyone is male then nobody is male?
If all animals require oxygen, then no animals require oxygen?
If all people are sitting, the nobody is sitting?
No, that’s not really how that works.
For example: “There is a danger of making trivial accusations of religiosity. If everyone is religious than no one is religious. ”
I’m not really feeling ya, jackass.
How about this Folie. Maybe you should just eat a can of shut the fuck up with a side of chupacabra and go back to your 4chan jackoff club? Deal?
Leni–
I thought of the “if everyone is religious then no one is religious” too. Or how about, “if everyone is an atheist, then no one is an atheist” or “if everyone here speaks English then no one here speaks English.”
In fact, Folie Deuce is just blathering. If everyone is sexist, then– everyone is sexist, and let’s try to do something about that.
hoary puccoon @ 23:
Folie is blathering, true . But that shitbag did not suggest that everyone was sexist. He suggested no one was sexist.
Let me quote him: “There is a danger in making trivial accusations of sexism. If everyone is sexist than nobody is sexist.”
What exactly should we so with that?
Estrogen does have a particular effect on the human brain just like any hormone does, and that effect is in some capacity a greater concern for social cohesion. If you analyze the behavior of women (who have much higher estrogen levels than men) in general as compared to men in general you do see a greater concern for social cohesion and not offending people than you do with men.
Of course these ARE generalizations, but Harris never suggested that all women were incapable of thinking rationally about the truth. All he said (or implied) was that having a greater concern for social cohesion than for the truth is more of a feminine quality than a masculine one and that this might account for why he has less female fans than male ones. To suggest that a propensity for physical violence is more of a masculine trait than a feminine one due to the influence of testosterone is not incorrect, and it also doesn’t mean that all men are physically violent. The same is true of Harris’ comments.
The funny thing is that the people accusing Harris of sexism seem to care more about whether what he is saying is offensive than they care about what truth content his comments contained, which is precisely what he was referring to when talking about an “estrogen vibe”.
But how can Sam Harris be sexist? After all, his mother and his wife are women.
@Marcus Ranum
You’re right. Harris does this all the time. For example, after he got utterly clobbered in the debate with Bruce Schneier, he described the debate as ‘long and rather tedoius’. Pretty bad form.
Leni @ 24–
I know what Folie Deuce said. I was disagreeing. “If everyone is sexist then no one is sexist” is what FD said, I know. My response was, if everyone is sexist– well, then, everyone *is* sexist.
And we certainly aren’t going to end sexism by saying if everyone does it, it’s not really sexism, it’s just the way things are.
Folie Deuce is using the Dear Muslima tactic– saying that if you call out mild sexism that’s staring you in the face, then you’re denying really terrible sexism elsewhere. Of course, the people who use this tactic to shame Western women for protesting their own, sometimes relatively mild, experiences with sexism are almost never the same people who are willing to do anything about the terrible sexism, either in their own culture or anywhere else in the world. Whereas the people who call out relatively mild sexism are generally the same people who are speaking out against rape and wife-battering in their own culture, as well as FGM in the Muslim world.
As to what will work– I don’t know. Things are better now than they were when I (literally!) gave blood for the cause. But sexism is a long, long way from being exterminated. Now it’s my daughters and granddaughters who will be the ones leading the fight, and it’s up to them to pick their battles.
Sure. So now all you have to do is show how the critique of Harris’ words constitutes a trivial accusation. Oh wait, that would require you to make an actual argument, wouldn’t it? Never mind then.
Not allowing criticisms of your opinions to be posted is precisely the reason you will never be taken seriously.
A philosophy prof making extensive use of one of the most basic fallcies? That explains a lot. Thanks
Most people, when misquoted, would say, “I didn’t say that! Well, I did say it, but it was taken out of context. Here’s what I actually said with the removed context..” What they don’t do is go on Twitter and, when taxed with their quoted words, come back with, “Isn’t it possible I was misquoted?” “It was taken out of context. Isn’t that a possibility?” (paraphrasing due to just waking up and being to lazy to look it up at the mo). Well, yes, it is. It’s also possible that unicorns will fly out of my butt in the next five minutes, but it’s not likely.
Why so coy, Sam? If you were so egregiously misquoted, you’d think you’d be all over that. Instead, it was a number of tweets spread over hours worth of non-denial denials. And now, poor weary you, you must correct what you were quoted as saying, not because it’s the right thing to do or because what you were quoted as saying was insulting to half (or more) of the community, but because of “fans of pointless controversy”? Really? If you were quoted saying something particularly racist, say, and were called on it, would that, too, be pointless controversy and also have to stand until you deign to bless us all with your golden, corrected prose or would you correct it immediately?
Apologies for the double-post (dang, WordPress! Would it kill you to have a short edit window?).
Yeah, Folie Deuce. Yup, never call out the “small stuff”. It’s like the Civil Rights Movement. Things would’ve gone so much better if Rosa Parks hadn’t gotten so pissy about where she sat on a bus, right?**
“Blathering”, indeed.
**please note invisible sarcasm tag for the sarcasm-impaired.
This topic will always cause controversy. Yet, if you go to an all female lunch party and then compare it to an all male lunch party, the differences are clear. Men and women typically communicate differently and have different expectations socially. This does not mean all communicate/ socialize the same but that there is a high percentage of individuals of the same sex do. Marketing can come up with statistics showing a clear difference between the preferences between men and women. There are psychological studies showing that the majority of women avoid confrontation socially and in many other situations. Why do so many people automatically conflate this issue with washing dishes, having babies, etc. ?
@questioningkat
But the question is not that there are differences, but why there are differences in how gender interact. Sam Harris calls it intrinsic and trots out “nurturing” and “estrogen vibe” and that is the problem. Same with Shermer saying “it’s more of a guy thing”. They are so close to getting to a point, but dismiss it as that’s the way things are, they don’t look deeper into historical and societal influences. This is lazy and dishonest and that’s being generous.
There have been 0 women presidents of the USA. This must be because there is something presidential about testosterone.
The fact that there are some inherent differences between men and women doesn’t mean that all the differences we see are inherent. We know for a fact that a lot of things that are definitely not inherent have historically been called so as a way of defending the status quo. So we should always be extremely skeptical of anyone who comes along telling us it’s all about the ladybrains.
To make my point clearer, let me ask this series of questions:
1) Out of all the differences that have been proposed, how many have actually turned out to be inherent?
2) What does that imply about the next claim of inherent difference?
3) On that basis, how much evidence should we expect before accepting a claim of inherent difference?
4) Has Sam Harris provided that level of evidence? If not, why not?
Now, now, johnthedrunkard,
Don’t confuse poor, Bright™ Sam’s masculine intuition with facts.
I’m sure I’m not the first one to note that Sam Harris is notorious for being completely unable to deal with criticism. I mean, beyond this present example, when other atheists disagreed with him about racial profiling, the moral landscape or his views on Islam, he lost his shit and didn’t respond with arguments. 100%, pure emotional response.
@Ethan 26
“The funny thing is that the people accusing Harris of sexism seem to care more about whether what he is saying is offensive than they care about what truth content his comments contained, which is precisely what he was referring to when talking about an “estrogen vibe”.
In other words, you’re saying that what Harris meant by estrogen vibe is “caring more about the superficial rather than the truth”, or “caring more about the container than the content”?
Not sexist at all.
I actually think he probably meant something less blatantly sexist than what you’ve interpreted.
questioningkat @35:
If you look at the diversity of the US Congress, you find that only 28 members are Hispanic; if they were elected according to their share of the total US population, though, there should have been 72 members. Should we conclude that Hispanics are clearly different from white males in their ability to handle politics, who hold 302 seats when their share suggests they should have 162?
Actually, the science shows there is no significant difference in communication style between men and women. You seem to have been misinformed by cherry-picked anecdotes and small-scale studies which perpetuate existing myths.
@Folie Deuce #18
What danger? Who is harmed when making trivial accusations of sexism? I am for instance often chided by my S.O. for making very slightly sexist remarks, or not understanding that something I said was sexist. I apologise and try to use nonsexist language next time or think about things differently, it’s pretty easy and no one is harmed. On the other hand I often notice slightly sexist things other people say and try to correct them or just mention “that’s a bit sexist by the way”. No one is in danger, no one is harmed. In fact some of those people stop doing those sexist things as much.
And your second sentence: Everyone *is* sexist! Every single human being operates either consciously or subconsciously on gender/sex/age/whatever biases. You see, we live in a complicated world (this may come as news to you) where although each individual is different in almost every aspect, our brains are very good at making models and approximations – and use thes to evaluate new people and situations. So we make generalisations, use labels, apply stereotypes (even complicated, non-conforming ones). Not being sexist is *hard* in a society full of sexism, especially since many broad generalisations are true culturally (women spend more time on childcare than men), although not due to inherant properties of individual women, but more as cultural averages.
Just as everyone has subjective experiences, everyone is subject to bias to some degree, and so everyone is responsible for not propagating harmful stereotypes as well as not evaluating individuals based on arbitrary criteria. Sexism is everyone’s problem.
@questioningkat
Marketing will also show that certain colours/sounds/styles/actors/shapes/situations/behaviours are more influential in different parts of the world… would you then explain this to mean (in a similar vein) something very racist, or instead assume that most if not all of these differences are cultural?
What is “womanly” is going to be shaped by multiple things: upbringing, cultural expectations, role models, media, peer pressure, in short experiences of being a woman and experiences of interacting with women. Sam Harris’s nurturing #EstrogenVibe is a horrible assumption.
People discussing the cultural forces that influence women and men isn’t controversial – people assuming inherant gender differences without evidence to back it up *is* controversial, as well as being insulting.
So when you say:
That’s not what Sam Harris was saying, or what anyone else is denying.
@Maudell 40
The question isn’t whether a given statement is sexist the question is whether it’s true. The responses to Harris’ statements ARE more concerned with the superficial than with the truth. Is it sexist to acknowledge this? The very term “sexist” is being used as an ad hominem attack that precludes the necessity of talking reasonably about the truth.
@=8)-DX 42
“People discussing the cultural forces that influence women and men isn’t controversial – people assuming inherant gender differences without evidence to back it up *is* controversial, as well as being insulting.”
It is not controversial to anyone who values the truth. It is only controversial to the people who would rather it wasn’t true. If everything were cultural then why are men and women born with different brain structures? Why can people be born with a brain gendered differently than their body? Where does the capacity to be influenced by culture come from if it is not innate?
Behavioral differences amount to differences in neurology. That is to say that people act differently because their brains are physically different (this is true whether these physical differences are innate or caused by the environment). Neurology is just as controlled by our genes as our outward appearance is, and is just as subject to evolutionary pressure. If the physical characteristics of men and women are innate (height, size, genitalia, etc), it logically follows that neurology, and therefore behavior, is as well.
@Ethan, #44
Ethan, please notice I “assuming inherant differences”. Until the evidence is in there is no reason to assume a behavioural difference is inherant, genetic or anything else.
Case in point, Harris’ absurd ideas about estrogen making women (not men?) less atheistic, confrontational, etc: as for instance Greta Christina notes , atheism is distributed fairly evenly among the genders/sexes worldwide as seen in this study.
Your points about neurology ignore the extreme neuroplasticity of human brains – as we grow up and develop into mature adults our brains are growing alongside us, literally creating the needed structures as we go along. The experiences and lessons we learn actually lead us to have different brains, so differences in female and male brains are not evidence of the genetic basis for behavioural differences, especially when there’s research showing bias among scientists studying these differences as well as the fact that smaller brains will tend to have a different structure anyway.
And once again: assuming any given trait or behaviour has a genetic basis is just bad science, bad genetics unless you can show it is heritable, unless you can point to the actual genes or developmental pathways that influence it.
Ethan @26:
You used the qualifier “seem”; did you not mean it?
(Consider: if you’re misperceiving, it might account for why it seems funny to you)
—
@43:
Leaving aside that one can ask more questions about a given statement than its truth value, you should be aware that some statements are of opinion.
(“I think X” is always truthful so long as I think X, whether or not X is true)
It no longer seems so, but it now is so. To you.
(Because noting that X is a sexist sentiment is true if that’s one’s opinion, no? 😉 )
Try a little commutation on known data: if what Harris states is seen as sexist, then the defending of Harris on the basis of the purported truth-value of that statement alone is tantamount to endorsing that sexism, right?
(Can you take the next step on your own?)
You mistake a description for a premise, indicating you are confused regarding to what argumentum ad hominem refers.
Of course, there never was such a necessity to preclude.
(Did you not imagine you were “talking reasonably about the truth”?)
@John Morales
“You used the qualifier “seem”; did you not mean it?
(Consider: if you’re misperceiving, it might account for why it seems funny to you)”
Seem as in that’s what it looks like from my perspective. I don’t see the problem with making this caveat and i think your being far too pedantic about it.
“Leaving aside that one can ask more questions about a given statement than its truth value, you should be aware that some statements are of opinion.
(“I think X” is always truthful so long as I think X, whether or not X is true)”
The point I was making about truth value is that the truth cannot be sexist. Calling something sexist before we consider it’s truth content is not the right order to go about things. As for opinions, they can be right or they can be wrong. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks is true, it matters what actually is true.
“It no longer seems so, but it now is so. To you.
(Because noting that X is a sexist sentiment is true if that’s one’s opinion, no? 😉 )”
Perhaps I should have said “seems” again, but again I think you’re being ridiculously pedantic. You’re picking out problems in my wording rather than addressing my claim that there are innate differences between men and women. It doesn’t get much more superficial than that. If you look back over the posts on this page, and on the twitter page of #estrogenvibe, you will not see many people trying to provide evidence that Harris was factually wrong in suggesting that estrogen affects women in a particular way. What you will find is people who are offended by it and who say they are offended by it. That is, they care how it sounds and not whether it is true.
“Try a little commutation on known data: if what Harris states is seen as sexist, then the defending of Harris on the basis of the purported truth-value of that statement alone is tantamount to endorsing that sexism, right?
(Can you take the next step on your own?)”
The way that the universe is cannot be sexist or not sexist, it is what it is. One should be honest about what they think is true first, and then determine the ethical implications of that truth second. I am not endorsing discrimination of any kind against women, but if it is true that both men and women have certain innate qualities, we need to know about them so they don’t impede ethical progress.
“You mistake a description for a premise, indicating you are confused regarding to what argumentum ad hominem refers.
Of course, there never was such a necessity to preclude.
(Did you not imagine you were “talking reasonably about the truth”?)”
Saying “X is a sexist person/statement” is a premise. To call it a description alone is to assume that it is true just because someone says it is. It is not a description unless it is true, and if we don’t ask if it’s true we can’t say it is a description. The point I was making is that it seems (as in it appears to be true from my point of view although I’m open to evidence to the contrary) that calling a person or a statement sexist is all that is required, and serves as a replacement for discussing whether that statement is true or not.
Nothing in your comment addresses the truth or falsity of the claim that estrogen has a specific effect on women / that there are innate differences between men and women.
@Ethan says #47
Apart from all the people providing to the evidence that women are not less likely to be atheists than men, including the worldwide Gallup study Greta pointed out. If estrogen affects women in the way Harris says (despite there not being any evidence to back this up), why are gender differences between atheists local and tied to culture instead of this being a worldwide trend?
Also I can provide a much easier explanation of #EstrogenVibe and people not taking Harris seriously – his sexist remarks have been shown to be misogynist bullshit many times in the past, and the people reacting to him are laughing at the abusrd implications. Anyone can invent their own pet theory – since women have larger nipples than men on average, I think it’s the smallness and resiliance of nipple that leads one to confront one’s own worldview and think critically religious beliefs. I’m aboslutely sure of this theory from my personal experience – every time I twist my nipples and they become more sensitive I start become a more critical atheist. Yes indeed. Either that or it’s Louis’ engulfing vaginas.
Hey Ethan?
If I had a dollar for every time a racist told me they weren’t racist, since their baseless racist beliefs were really facts, I’d be as wealthy as the sexist privileged asshole you are defending.
You’re wrong, you aren’t good at science or skeptisism and you are sexist. Check yourself. You are way out of your depth.
PSA
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
results in
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
@ =8)-DX 48
That Gallop pole is the only thing I’ve seen and while it is interesting it is far from conclusive even on the relative numbers of men and women who are atheists, let alone the effects of estrogen. The question really boils down to is the human brain a blank slate at birth or are there certain propensities programmed into it (and do these differ for men and women). The answer to this question has been found and it is no, the human brain is not a blank slate whose nature is dictated solely by environmental influence.
Behavioral genetics studies on identical twins put up for adoption have indicated “strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.” Identical twins raised in different environments were shown to share more similarities than fraternal twins raised in the same home (source: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/understanding-nature-nurture-twins; and: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616S.pdf).
There are cases of males whose penises have been destroyed in circumcision or who were born with micro penises and were gender reassigned and raised as girls without their knowledge or consent. If they’re raised as girls they should identify as girls, right? No. In the most famous of these cases (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) the “girl” had failed to identify as female by the age of 9, started living as a male by 15, and had committed suicide by the age of 38.
Here’s a cross-cultural study showing that there are “huge differences in personality between men and women”: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/huge-differences-in-personality-between.html.
Reading accounts of sex differences from different time periods and cultures we can see that in essence the behavior of each gender has been quite consistent throughout recorded human history. The ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans, artists from Shakespeare to Flaubert to Tolstoy have all shown women (and men) behaving and acting in a stereotypical fashion (too much to link but if you’re interested the sources won’t be hard to find).
Here’s a study entitled “Sex Hormones and Womanly Passions”: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200907/sex-hormones-and-womanly-passions. It’s mainly about the influence of testosterone, but obviously still relevant. Here’s the most important part: “Women with high testosterone levels describe themselves as being action-oriented, resourceful and powerful. Effects on physical aggression are unclear. Research shows that high-testosterone women are more competitive and more verbally aggressive, however. In experiments, women administered testosterone respond more strongly to angry faces. They also take bigger risks in a game of chance. Women who had been exposed to more testosterone early in development (as inferred from the relative length of the ring finger compared to the index finger) are more competitive, more assertive, and more socially dominant. Testosterone affects sexual behavior in women as well as men.” Basically testosterone is what makes males masculine, and estrogen is what makes females feminine (huge oversimplification but not inaccurate).
Saying over and over again that Harris’ remarks are bullshit does not make it true and does not constitute evidence for it being true. This is not just a “pet theory”.
@ Jackie 50
I don’t think you understand what sexism or racism mean. They refer to a prejudice and/or discrimination based on gender / race. The truth cannot do either of those things. As for me personally, I am not prejudiced in that I think a good argument is a good argument regardless of where it comes from, a person good at their job is good at that job regardless of gender, etc. I would only be sexist if I refused to change my opinion when confronted with evidence, or if I refused to listen to women just because they are women, neither of which I do.
Thinking that there cannot be differences between men and women just because we feel an ethical obligation for equality is committing the naturalistic fallacy. There are things that men are typically better at than women, and things that women are typically better at than men. This is not (or at least should not) form the basis of discrimination or prejudice.
Then how about you get off your ass and show that your claims are actually true? See, the point Jackie was making is racists tend claim that their prejudices just reflect the truth, but rarely get around to giving any reliable evidence for that. She then pointed out that that’s exactly what you’re doing here.
If you want to make take the “the truth is an absolute defense” route, it requires you to actually show that what you’re saying is true. Until you do that, you’re just another prejudiced blowhard, pretending that his opinion is synonymous with reality.
Not true. Simply failing to provide evidence for your contention is sufficient. Historically, many claims of gender essentialism have been made and they’ve usually turned out to be complete crap. For example, a classic stereotype is that “women belong in the kitchen”. Oddly, as soon as celebrity cooks arrived on the scene, women were told that they were inferior to men in cooking skills. That’s something I noticed just in my own lifetime.
If you actually pay attention, you’ll notice that claims of inherent gender differences tend to follow cultural prejudices. That’s because they’re usually crap. Sure, there are some inherent differences between men and women, obviously, but they’re nowhere as clear or universal as people routinely claim.
I might compare it with pseudo-scientific notions concerning blood types. It’s indisputable that the different blood groups have clear, objectively verifiable differences. However, that doesn’t mean that every claim about inherent differences between blood groups is true or even halfway credible. People have claimed all sorts of things as relating to blood groups; temperament, diet preferences, disease vulnerabilities, you name it. The vast majority have turned out to be utter bunk.
So, when the next person comes along to claim that your blood type determines your optimal career path, are you going to accept that claim? Are you going to consider the claim credible until actively disproved? Or are you going to be sensible and assume it’s bunk until they show otherwise?
The rational response to any claim of inherent gender traits is extreme skepticism. The burden of proof is solidly on those who claim that the difference is inherent. The sensible default is to assume that whatever claim is being made is at best overblown, and at worst completely false. That’s what our experience tells us.
What if the jobs are preferrentially offered to men, so any given woman will have less work experience in such jobs than men? What if the requirements of the job ignore biological or gender differences? What if the job comes with a hostile environment towards non-gender-conforming people? What if the social and educational structure in your country dissuaded people of certain genders from participating in that job and their doing so incurred much more psychological stress and overcoming of boundaries than for others? What if people with certain genders/orientations/sexualities are excluded from that job altogether?
Wouldn’t it then be just a little bit sexist to say “the truth is that group X aren’t as good at that job”? (Hint: “lies of omission”, “confirmation bias”). What you’re doing is assuming a level playing field that holds the lie to your “truth claim”.
How about reading the transcript? If true statements are sexist, then you have a problem with reality not Harris.
And if you truly thinks he is wrong about something he said, how about correcting him? Saying “you are sexist” is just noise. What specifically was incorrect?
johnthedrunkard, how many times does he have to say “my active follower”, “my twitter followers”, etc. for you to understand that he is talking about his active “fan base” and not the world’s population of atheists?
I never said sexism doesn’t exist, I just said it shouldn’t be sexist to acknowledge the truth (whatever it may be). Also, in my experience women have as many if not more opportunities in the modern world than men when it comes to employment (I stress just in my experience). Women in STEM degrees at university are often given preferential treatment when it comes to placements, scholarships, etc. Any workplace which discriminates based on gender will find themselves in a lawsuit which they will almost definitely lose.
It really does seem like your just complaining for the sake of it. I want to try to explain how this all seems from my perspective. Read Ophelia Benson’s response to Harris’ recent blog post about his alleged sexism. Now imagine if one scientist had replied to another scientists paper in the same way. There is no concern for truth shown whatsoever, only condescension and sarcasm. This is not how rational inquiry into the nature of reality is done.
I never said sexism doesn’t exist, I just said it shouldn’t be sexist to acknowledge the truth (whatever it may be).
You are conflating “truth” with a brief, badly worded, patronizing reference to a convenient stereotype from someone who should know better.
As Mano said in a post the other day, it is my experience that black men don’t get pulled over more than me. That doesn’t make it true. Experience is a good place to start, not end.
Woops, effed up that quote. First sentence is Ethan @58.
Ethan gets a 7.8 on the mansplaining scale.
If you spend a little more time on how tough men have it, you can score higher.
Did you know that testosterone made men stupid?
Troofax!
Dispute, that, Ethan!