[nirvanatikku]

Pretty sure you are.

Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.

You know why? Because if you don't have power, your ideas do not come into implementation (you don't have resources!).

Therefore, a dominant group i.e. men or white people, cannot be discriminated against because they are the centre of power - they are the arbiters.

This BS of reverse sexism that you are perpetuating is complete nonsense with absolutely zero sociological backing. Therefore, the men you reference were not "discriminated" against.

In fact, your reference to "normal people" shows how un-nuanced you are in your understanding of discrimination and society in general.

Also, the fact that you expect a diversity of ideas from a homogenous group of people is absurd - unique ideas come through because people have unique backgrounds and experiences - as these in turn act as frameworks for their intellectual products.

Has it ever occurred to you that having people with "diverse" "skin" and "sexual orientation" could actually contribute to your goal of having diverse ideas?

Don't cite one conference as proof for why men are discriminated against. Do you know who was part of the blind review process? and more importantly, does that selection reflect on the quality of scholarship put forth by female candidates or is it the product of the experiences of the people sitting on the panel?

[LyndsySimon]

> those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.

First, your definition here is neither the common English nor one broadly accepted. I assert that this is an attempt to redefine language in order to obscure the argument at hand.

Second, power is situational. Part of Damore's criticism is that those in power at Google are sing that power to discriminate against a non-dominant group.

[justinjlynn]

> Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.

If you take that as axiomatic then there is no debate here if we insist on using the term discrimination to discuss this problem. However, if one can arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever one so chooses them to mean and, in so doing, believe they're redefining what their interlocutor is espousing, then that individual is being truly intellectually dishonest.

Academically, of what discrimination consists and how discrimination is defined, as a word and concept, is still of great debate. Google around for morally relevant differences and discrimination for some sources and further reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on discrimination is a good starting place.

However, in general common usage, the word discrimination is defined as:

> treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimin...

> a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

>The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination

Note that in common usage the word is not qualified on the power or status of the agent of discrimination.

Unless both one and one's interlocutor have agreed on another definition it is vital to assume good faith and and stick to commonly accepted words and their meanings. If one does not one is at the risk of violating Grice's maxims and, in so doing, losing one's privilege of having others take one's words seriously. Put simply, if it's a new concept, use a new (or qualified) word. A seat at the table is predicated on clear, honest, equivocation-free communication.

I'm sure you're not doing these things purposefully. After all what is the point of advancing a cause if one, through one's actions, prejudices the very people one is trying persuade? It's rather self-defeating.

[nirvanatikku]

It's bizarre that from my response you had to get into semantics, which completely misses the point.

It's not about dictionary definitions of words, it's about how discrimination manifests (or how it cannot in the hands of those who don't hold power). Surely we can debate what discrimination means, but there's a plethora of sociological literature on the intersection of that dictionary definition (that you referenced) and how it comes to fruition in the hands of dominant groups. This is obviously central to this discussion as it was implied that there was somehow reverse discrimination against men.

Please share what you think about that, genuinely curious.

[justinjlynn]

I don't agree with your implication that semantics aren't important in this argument.

What you refer to simply as discrimination is probably better characterised as discrimination by "morally acceptable" traits while your interlocutor would characterise it as discrimination by "morally irrelevant" traits. This, I think, is the heart of the debate. It's clear that discrimination is occurring. The real question of debate is whether or not it's acceptable.

It's politically untenable to admit that and so we do actually have to discuss semantics. After all, can you imagine having to say "I'm being sexist but it's okay, he's male." or being called a misogynist and saying one is proud of that fact?

[nirvanatikku]

I didn't say that semantics were unimportant overall, I'm implying that its erroneous to assert that there's discrimination at play against men in this context because to imply so, supports the stale argument that policies favoring equal gender representation discriminate against men.

[justinjlynn]

A fair statement. However, can we make a blanket statement about all policies or all possible such policies? Some of them are quite blunt (i.e. direct quota specification) and others attempt to address conditions that contribute to unequal outcomes and/or opportunities (i.e. hostile working environments). Each policy attempts to address the problem differently with different effects on those seeking to enter, work in, or leave the field. Could some clumsily implemented policy somewhere unjustifiably exclude someone or make conditions worse for them because of something they can't control?

I think the answer to that question is certainly a yes. Is it possible that some of those discriminated against identify as male? Again, yes. We shouldn't make blanket statements or dismiss complaints about specific possible injustices. To do so is to forget how we got to the worse place we were at decades ago and risk going back there (in any direction). I can't imagine any of us want that.

[nirvanatikku]

"because of something they can't control" is a dangerous point to me; while I may not be able to change or "control" the fact that I am male, I can certainly gain awareness of my male privilege and behave in a way that does not perpetuate it.

So going to back to the original poster, had he been aware of this privilege he would not make statements about reverse discrimination or some injustice being perpetuated against him or other men due to policies that support women's equal participation in our industry.