[jonas_b]

- The guy presenting this might be wrong. - He may be an asshole and/or have resentful intentions with making this presentations.

However, none of the people who disagree with him in this article engage with any of these things. They're just angry that he's saying this at all! Their upset emotions seems to be the only case against what he's saying.

[simonrobb]

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.

[repolfx]

People have expressed these arguments in:

- 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.

[posterboy]

It seems as if that conversation was part of the bias in the first place, so there's two sides of the same medal.

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).

[simonrobb]

I can't speak for the libertarians and how they respond. I think a libertarian blog is the perfect place for it, and I'd have happily engaged in a debate, just like I am here.

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.

[pervycreeper]

Can you specify an appropriate forum in which he could have presented his findings to the public without upsetting anyone?

[simonrobb]

Upsetting anyone? Probably not possible, and probably not desirable. There's always going to be people getting offended when you state a controversial opinion. But of course you can minimize the offense, and it doesn't take much imagination to think up a better option than a conference designed to support women. Blogs/journals/conferences not specifically for supporting women/editorials/radio shows/record a podcast. Write a manifesto for crying out loud.

[posterboy]

His findings? A request for comment to the "Frauenbeauftragte" (gender equality officer, women's affairs representative, whathaveyou) or a prof of gender studies would have given a chance to compare his results to others. It's not exactly a master thesis or anything.

[adamrezich]

Is this what "science" has become?

[simonrobb]

Being a scientist doesn't preclude having empathy.

Presenting data and drawing conclusions is fine. You just don't have to be a dick about it.

[adamrezich]

How would you have changed the talk or slides to have corrected for this?

[simonrobb]

I think the selection of studies was somewhat myopic, and I thought his reasoning was flawed, so I'd change that.

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.

[jbob2000]

Would you have called Galileo the same thing?

[simonrobb]

Galileo maybe isn't the best example, since his reputation seems to (as I understand it) be massively overblown in an enduring myth.

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?

[jbob2000]

Considering the prevalence of the church and its properties at the time, there really was no “correct” forum for Galileo to promote his findings - everywhere is disrespectful! He was pushed out of every forum he went to.

This guy has the same problem - you will always just tell him he’s in the wrong place.

[posterboy]

> He may be an asshole ...

why would you even say that?

> --- and/or have resentful intentions with making this presentations.

The female pick for a position he applied to? That's not enough to go on.

> Their upset emotions seems to be the only case against what he's saying.

You have to assume that the organization's code of conduct (or whatever) is based on evidence and agreement.