Quantcast

«

»

May 03 2008

“Explanations” Of Under-Representation By Privileged Assholes

Zuska has a fascinating discussion going on concerning the curious fact that shitbag privileged assholes always seem to come slithering out from under whatever skanky rocks they reside to “explain” the fact that the non-privileged are under-represented in some endeavor because of some essential aspect of human biology, psychology, or other immutable inevitable feature of human nature, and never because of their fucking lack of privilege.

Now personally, whenever I hear a privileged asshole explain that the reason why the non-privileged aren’t equally represented in some endeavor is due to “genetics” or “lack of interest” or some other cockamamie essentialist bullshit he pulled right the fuck out of his ass, I tend to be pretty fucking skeptical! It’s just a little bit too convenient to just be a coincidence that dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence on the ground leads right the fuck to maintenance of the privilege status quo, you know what I’m saying?

What lead to this discussion at Zuska’s was a comment on another post of Zuska’s made by some dumb fuck concerning the severe under-representation of women in engineering:

I’m simply saying that it is [foolish] to expect female engineering enrollment to be equal to men’s enrollment, if engineering is a field which is, statistically speaking, more attractive to men than to women.

Zuska cleverly took down this shithead’s pathetic excuse for an argument by translating his fake-ass scientific-sounding dumbassery into clear English:

There aren’t a lot of women in engineering. I personally believe this is because women just don’t like Teh Engineering. They don’t like engineering because engineering is for Teh Men. Engineering is for men because it is what men do. It is not for women because it is not what women do. There is Boy Stuff, and there is Girl Stuff. Engineering is Boy Stuff.

Well, Mr. Asshat Apologist responded in a hurt and indignant tone (waaahh, waaahh, you feminists are so mean!!! you are soo misinterpreting me!!) that he was just making a “conditional statement”:

I was making a conditional statement: if it is true that engineering is more attractive to men than it is to women, then expecting, in enrollment, the same number of men as women is an unattainable goal.

I never claimed to know this for a fact, but merely accepted that it is possible, given that men and woman seem to have (as a group or on the whole) different interests. I’m not saying that either is better or worse, just different.

Yeah, it’s all just a fascinating dispassionate intellectual exercise in the positing of “conditional statements”, old chap.

Of course, it’s these same fucking asshole douchemonkeys spewing ridiculous buffoonery like dumbfuck Mr. Asshat Apologist’s wholly speculative “conditional statement” designed to “raise the possibility” solely “for purposes of discussion” that women might not be interested in engineering (i.e., a load of wholesale bullshit pulled right the fuck out of his ass) who bitch and moan endlessly about how detailed exhaustive quantitative analyses of actual fucking reality like Sherry Towers’s are “not well-supported by statistics” or “incomplete” or “insufficient to establish discrimination”. Fucking hypocritical scumbags.

Here’s the fucking deal: If you are arguing from a position of privilege that the existence of under-representation of the non-privileged is not a consequence of your privilege, the motherfucking burden of proof is on you to prove it. Pulling speculative shit out of your ass that happens to reinforce the status quo, while at the same time shifting the burden of proof to the non-privileged and setting an absurd standard for satisfaction of that burden does not hold any fucking water.

We’re onto your fucking game. Capisce?

13 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Steve T.

    Decades ago a righteous dude observed that any man smug about the presumed superiority of men in using Teh Machine – closely related to the men as natural engineers myth – should try something millions of women do every day with great skill: operate a sewing machine.

    Looks fucking easy, but it ain’t!

  2. 2
    larue

    I like the deal.

    How we gonna ensure the 23% whackaloons really GET it, though?

    Maybe we could hang a sign outside the card room?

    “We reserve the right to refuse service to ANY phuckin whackaloon dumbphucks?”

    Don’t even let the ‘tards near the building, much less at the table.

  3. 3
    larue

    Maybe needs a rewrite:

    “We refuse to reservice ANY rights of phuckin whackaloon dumbphucks?”

  4. 4
    bustednuckles

    As usual, let me speak plainly.
    Assholes who feel the need to try and rationalize the lack of representation of certain people who they consider to be less fortunate are usually the very same scrotum licker’s who scream the loudest when things don’t seem to be going their way. For a clinical example, let me use Representative Boehner and former Representative Gingrich.
    Neither has had to personally deal with being underpriveleged in any way, yet squeal like stuck pigs when certain conditions they mandate to be necessary for the good of the average citizen do not materialize in a manner somewhat akin to the speed of light.
    Therefore,
    A: They are Whiny Assed Titty Babies, commonly known as WATB and,
    B: Whatever they are currently screaming and crying about is inversely proportional the the general well being of the average Joe or Jane.
    In conclusion;
    The louder one hears he or she proclaiming the lack of representation due to natural endemic structures, the more it is from a superior position of accumulated resources that they are trying to protect. Copying the observed tactic of some ground dwelling birds when the nest is threatened, flapping about mimicking a broken wing and braying like a jackass is the preferred response.
    Wait, I could be mistaken about that last attribute.
    But I think it’s pretty fucking accurate.

    Shorter version, You commoners wouldn’t understand how it is, so STFU and do like we tell ya.

  5. 5
    whatsername

    Nice.

  6. 6
    littlem

    I’m simply saying that it is [foolish] to expect female engineering enrollment to be equal to men’s enrollment, if engineering is a field which is, statistically speaking, more attractive to men than to women.

    All I have the current brainpower to say here is:
    “Whoa there, Tautology Boy.”

    Plus, all my engineering girlfriends say that all the d**k-waving that goes on in the environment is what makes the environment in engineering — as opposed to the discipline of engineering, a distinction that types like these (and their brethren — and it is always brethren, it seems, in comparable disciplines) seem to blithely miss on the regular — unpleasant. Not necessarily hostile, you understand, but smelly and unpleasant. (Take that how you wish.)

    I will address the larger point later, in the hopes that all brain cells will have taken Pilates class and revived themselves.

  7. 7
    littlem

    Plus, I like this:

    Here’s the fucking deal: If you are arguing from a position of privilege that the existence of under-representation of the non-privileged is not a consequence of your privilege, the motherfucking burden of proof is on you to prove it.

    It’s pretty. And sparkly.

  8. 8
    daisydeadhead

    Fun reading! :P You rock!

  9. 9
    Susan

    We’re onto your fucking game. Capisce?

    Excellent. I like Stew (the singer/songwriter, of The Negro Problem)(although the comestible is pretty good, too). He appeared at TED a couple of years ago, and his “Black Men Ski” is up on their site. He sings:

    Some kids I’ll describe as friends
    Say I am race obsessed
    The luxury of your opinion
    Shows that you are blessed

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/119

    He’s onto their game, too.

  10. 10
    absinthe

    If you are arguing from a position of privilege that the existence of under-representation of the non-privileged is not a consequence of your privilege, the motherfucking burden of proof is on you to prove it. Pulling speculative shit out of your ass that happens to reinforce the status quo, while at the same time shifting the burden of proof to the non-privileged and setting an absurd standard for satisfaction of that burden does not hold any fucking water.

    I wish I could tattoo that entire paragraph onto the foreheads of the 3000 or so people who have left online nit-picky bullcrap “commentary” on the Fermilab gender-inequity-in-conference-allocations preprint. In the past couple of weeks I have had to read through and/or listen to a couple of lifetimes’ worth of bullshit.

  11. 11
  12. 12
    ECL

    I don’t even understand the logic of Mr. Asshat Apologist.

    Saying that — for the sake of intellectual honesty — we need to consider the possibility that it is not a long history of institutionalized sexism that has caused women to be underrepresented in STEM fields, but rather women’s inherent interests is like saying that I — for the sake of intellectual honesty — I need to consider the possibility that I am fat not because of the quart of ice cream I eat every day, but because I may have a metabolic oddity that allows me to transform the air I breathe into fat.

    We know societal attitudes and even very small shifts in self-perception can cause measurable changes in performance. We know this from empirical evidence. It is the constant search for an alternative copout that would allows us to say, “see? it’s just the way it is! Nothing we can do about it.” that is dishonest.

  13. 13
    Iron Gator

    Horseshit on Melba toast!

    Got a daughter with a Bachelor’s in Engineering, second in her class at a big California school in ’92. She did the work and slugged it out because, in her words, “They pay me a metric shitload of money to do Engineering. No bucks in teaching kindergarten or coaching tennis.”

  1. 14
    Welcome Field Negro Readers! « PhysioProf

    [...] explanations-of-under-representation-by-privileged-assholes/ [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>