|
> So when we have a case where the differences with other similar cases are the race and sex of the individual, it would be odd not to conclude that race and sex were probably strong, if not determining, factors. Really? The only differences are the race and sex of the individuals? The white men you mentioned held the same job role, had the same history with the company, attempted to publish the exact same paper, were asked to retract it in the exact same way, sent the exact same angry reactionary email to a large group in their capacity as a manager, and threatened to resign if the exact same conditions were not met in the exact same way? There is simply no way this is true, and it is telling to me that you overlook all of that. We appear to be living in different realities. The "deep body of scholarship" you refer to is highly disputed, generally hard to replicate, falsify, or use predictively, and not anywhere near being the hard scientific fact you are attempting to anoint it as. I don't much care about the opinions of a couple of individuals with unknown biases and ideologies; I consider their thoughts largely irrelevant. The facts and details of their stories are not however, so if you have them I would appreciate it if you could share. Why would I think it would depend entirely on details and circumstances...? Why on earth wouldn't it!? The main systemic sexism I remember google being accused of recently was actually underpaying all their male employees [0] You seem to "know" that sexism and racism are responsible for this, but it seems to me you've started with that conclusion and worked backward. If you are correct, the details of the individual stories should support your view. So I ask again, are those details available? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-... |
I've felt for a long time that this rhetoric makes it harder for marginalised voices to actually be taken seriously.