undefined | Better HN

0 pointsannexrichmond7y ago0 comments

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Having trouble reconciling it with my reasoning though, which is: if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist than everyone else

0 comments

maybeiambatman7y ago

I understand your point. I guess I am trying to highlight the fact that most sexism/racism these days are systematic. The people aren't probably less/more sexist than everyone else. But, they can build a culture that is less sexist.

abalone7y ago

> if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist

You have simply defined “overrepresentation” in a sexist manner (50% women).

annexrichmondOP7y ago

overrepresented given some pool.

Do you have data that suggests said pool is 50%, instead of replying to all my comments and calling me sexist?

abalone7y ago

“In 1970, only 7.6% of physicians were female. Today, approximately 30% of full time physicians are women and about 50% of medical school students are female. The vast improvement in statistics is not only promising but also inspiring for other divisions of the workforce that have not seen that quick of an improvement. However, upon diving deeper into statistics, it’s clear that gender still plays an unfair role in the success of a doctor. Between 80 to 90 percent of leadership roles in medicine, like medical school deans, are filled by men...”[1]

Your concept of a “pool” is as sexist as thinking that a hospital with more than 7.6% women physicians in 1970 was a result of discrimination against men.

The advance of women in medicine is not an “over representation”. It is closing the gap on underrepresentation due to systemic sexism (with still more work to do). This is beginning to happening in CS and other high wage fields traditionally reserved as men’s work. Your argument merely seeks to bastardize and turn the very terminology of sexism against this effort.

[1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

maybeiambatman7y ago

abalone7y ago

> if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist

You have simply defined “overrepresentation” in a sexist manner (50% women).

annexrichmondOP7y ago

overrepresented given some pool.

Do you have data that suggests said pool is 50%, instead of replying to all my comments and calling me sexist?

abalone7y ago

Your concept of a “pool” is as sexist as thinking that a hospital with more than 7.6% women physicians in 1970 was a result of discrimination against men.

[1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse