Einherjar86
Active Member
If my choices are either controversial or boring, I'll pass. Sorry for being a dick, I shouldn't have started this conversation. It's not at all something I care to read.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
rms
Active Member
Ein you are literally one of the most tunnel visioned and bias academics I have ever talked to. Legit mind-blowing how you don't realize this nor your insane reaching at "inference." Have you just given up? So strange
Only thing weird about that memo is where he suddenly starts talking about conservatives , that was out of place.
Only thing weird about that memo is where he suddenly starts talking about conservatives , that was out of place.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Yeah, who cares about meaning, the meta aesthetics of post-argument deconstruction is the fun part. I won't even consider an argument unless I've never heard it before.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well it does make the whole thing more exciting.
You guys need to understand something:
This conversation has nothing to do with my academic profile or commitments. I don't study or publish articles about gender inequality in the workplace, or the biological/genetic differences between men and women, or the role of women in the tech world, etc. etc.
I study literature. My dissertation is on late modernist literature and science fiction and the cybernetic principles at work in both. My two published articles are on narrative form in Peter Watts's fiction and representations of communication in Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.
I'm not an expert on gender differences or disparities. When it comes to topics like the one at hand, I read what most people did--the responses to Damore in the media. Whether or not these are accurate characterizations of the memo, I have no idea. It could be far less incendiary than I'm making it out to be. But I don't consider my arguments about it on this board to be indicative of the kind of research that I do when it comes to my real academic work. I do not perceive the things I say on this board (some of which are probably very misinformed) as part of my academic practice.
And that means that, at HBB says, I occasionally argue about things without having read them. But I'll at least always admit when I haven't done so.
Science-denier.
Science is a not a process of discovery, but construction.
EDIT: I'm sorry, but I think you guys may be giving Damore too much credit.
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-diversity-manifesto-science-logical-fallacy-2017-8
I realize that he says biology is only one factor, but he gives it a lot of weight. It's basically the determining factor in his argument.
Last edited:
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
I actually don't care either way, whether he's wrong or right - I just think it happened in a broader context of ridiculous political correctness and milquetoast censorship. Especially given my doubt that anybody would be fired in a similar situation had the memo addressed men in some way instead of women.
It all just seems like a clusterfuck of virtue, stupidity, outrage, spinelessness and attention seeking.
I think his argument reads as more plausible and more importantly provable than the counter-narrative which seems to just be sexism.
It all just seems like a clusterfuck of virtue, stupidity, outrage, spinelessness and attention seeking.
I think his argument reads as more plausible and more importantly provable than the counter-narrative which seems to just be sexism.
rms
Active Member
I'm on my phone so I can't really quote well, but the larger problem is that instead of formulating your own opinion by reading the manifesto, you would rather read excerpts and analysis by those you deem worthy, which is just goofy and opposite of an academic approach.
That business insider article is strange though, since his is the exact opposite of Damore, that culture shapes everything and not a mixture. The faulty logic there is already apparent. The counter with women's work during WW2 (the participation in labor since 1900 is a stupid point) actually strengthens Damores point he makes (off memory): women don't go into STEM because they have the freedom not to, because they value people over things. Sure this idea is also represented culturally, but I would.make the point this is emulated because of biological reasons.
That business insider article is strange though, since his is the exact opposite of Damore, that culture shapes everything and not a mixture. The faulty logic there is already apparent. The counter with women's work during WW2 (the participation in labor since 1900 is a stupid point) actually strengthens Damores point he makes (off memory): women don't go into STEM because they have the freedom not to, because they value people over things. Sure this idea is also represented culturally, but I would.make the point this is emulated because of biological reasons.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Only if I actually cared about the object (i.e. the manifesto) in question.
This is an internet forum. I'm not obliged to any academic standards here.
This would imply that they were forced to go into STEM prior to the women's rights movements, and that they didn't like them, when in fact they were prohibited from these kinds of jobs and, once allowed in, many women found that they did enjoy them.
Basically, the memo suggests (based on my not having read it
) that the paucity of women STEM in jobs is in keeping with a number of biological traits, and that it's counterproductive to force more women to work through diversity policies. Except that Google is forcing anyone to work. They're simply looking into taking more women applicants.I wouldn't say it's provable necessarily--at least not by our current instruments of measurement. But it is testable, surely, which is what the previous article you cited was saying (i.e. run the experiment, be a scientist about it, etc.).
rms
Active Member
Hilariously you separate the two as if you just turn off one. It's been apparent for awhile you are not a.man of integrity so this just helps demonstrate that.
Yes we've gone over how your beta Ness permits you from entertaining any idea about men. You and crimson share this
Isn't the premise behind programs like affirmative action that short term counter productiveness of forced equal representation then transforms to long term productiveness?
But the business insiders argument is weak to say it best and you didn't counter that so it's really just a waste of time.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's exactly what I do. I just turn one off.
You don't get to see my integrity. You get my asshole side.
You can't tell when I'm citing someone else's opinion or giving my own, can you? I could say "T Swift suggests that donkeys pee rainbows," and you'd challenge me to defend that statement as though it's my own.
But for what it's worth, donkeys do piss rainbows. Obviously.
Why would I counter it?
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Women are much more free now to choose the trajectory of their own lives. Is it not the case that in the 1930's and 1940's when women entered and pioneered tech (leaving aside the fact that there was a massive lack of men at that time due to military service) there was a portion of women in the field that is basically the same portion as there is now?
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is the reason why large numbers of women entered the "tech" industry (which wasn't tech at that time, it was engineering). Before that, they weren't major players in the engineering industry. After WWII, many factories refused to rehire women, and the dominant ideology reverted back to women doing "women's work" (i.e. service sector work, if not housewives).
It wasn't until later in the twentieth century that women were able to expand beyond the limited purview of "women's work."
Dak
mentat
Fortunately women were eventually emancipated from working inside the home so men and women could both work outside the home and still make the same amount of money between the both of them that the man made alone, and then pay someone to do the housework/childcare for a net loss. #progress
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yeah, fortunately indeed. I'm just saying, that wasn't the case in before WWII. Women pretty much had to work where they were told to.
Women work in engineering and tech today because of those achievements, after the postwar dream of the American household.
Women work in engineering and tech today because of those achievements, after the postwar dream of the American household.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Men and women have always been historically limited by what is considered their work. I'd rather be chained to the home than unleashed upon a battlefield. Of course if you say this, people hit back by saying yes women were denied the right to serve in the military too.
To that I would simply say, men didn't have the right to not serve in the military and women didn't fight for this right until peacetime.
To that I would simply say, men didn't have the right to not serve in the military and women didn't fight for this right until peacetime.
Einherjar86
Active Member
As would I. But you don't get paid for the home, and it's tough to support yourself when your skills are limited to housework and taking care of children. Unless you get a husband, of course...
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
Shit sandwiches all around. Exactly why I oppose the Oppression Olympics and so on.
CiG
The Veils of Negative Existence
rms
Active Member
Similar threads
