But that's the point. The term "sexist" itself, at least in its scholarly meaning, does not imply intent. Sexism is a feature of a social structure where women are granted significantly less power than men. The prevailing hypothesis -- which has a lot of supporting evidence -- is that we are all sexist, men and women alike, merely by virtue of being socialized in a sexist society.

When people first discovered microbes and claimed that people were spreading diseases by, say, not washing their hands properly, they did not mean that people were spreading disease intentionally, but it was nevertheless a fact that they were. But to understand why, you had to know about germs (which are invisible to the naked eye, and were only known to those who study the subject), and you had to be proactive in order not to spread diseased.

While that would be a nice narrative, I don't think it matches reality. If it did, the people outraged by apparent sexism would be trying to educate the sexists instead of getting them fired.

Certainly such people exist, but they're drowned out by the outrage machine that's trying to take away their livelihood.

I find it funny how the few of men whose livelihood may have been affected by unfair allegations is compared to the millions of women who are harassed while earning their livelihood and/or pushed away from earning one, every year, for centuries. Frankly, I'm amazed at how level headed the "outrage machine" is given at how much bigger the real outrage should have been. Also, those who want or are willing to be educated have plenty of resources at their disposal. The evidence is so overwhelming that there can be few if any those who are exposed to it and yet remain unconvinced. At this point, it's mostly diehards that are left, and the reason they are left is precisely because they don't want to see the evidence. Dawkins doesn't really think he can educate all evolution deniers on apparent evolution, and we don't think we can educate all those who wish to perpetuate sexism.

Your analogy to evolution is a textbook false equivalency. That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd.

And your patent acceptance that outrage is a legitimate response to these scenarios highlights exactly the problem with how this has been playing out. Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly.

> That you think the evidence for your narrative is as strong as the evidence for evolution is frankly absurd.

It really isn't, but seeing how adamant you are not to study the topic, I have no idea how you'd know whether it's absurd or not. But you are forced to declare the subject absurd, as that is the only thing that can justify, in your mind, not even bothering to examine it with any care (as, I assume, you consider yourself otherwise curious), which is what you want; namely, you don't want to see the fossils, and I really can't make you.

> Suddenly your comparison to Dawkins falls apart quite spectacularly.

Oh! You got me there! But one should bear in mind that creationism isn't what condemned millions to dependence and humiliation. A wise man once said that it's easy to remain cool-headed about other people's problems.

A 1987 study found 700 out of 480,000 Earth and life scientists don't believe in evolution. Are you suggesting these gender topics have a comparable consensus ratio? If so, evidence of this consensus should be trivial for you to produce.

So go ahead, I firmly believe attacking the strongest opposing argument, and I'm only interested in facts. Pick what you believe is Damore's weakest evidence, just one point, and show me the evidence of consensus contrary to Damore's position with a ratio on the same order as above. Then I will happily acknowledge that your analogy to evolution is 100% faithful.

> But one should bear in mind that creationism isn't what condemned millions to dependence and humiliation

A humiliation and dependence that none of the outraged people actually lived through. It's amazing that women could put up with the insane discrimination and sexism to achieve gender parity in so many other male dominated fields, like law and medicine, all without needing the outrage machine, but they are somehow powerless against a bunch of nerds who, by and large, just want to play with cool tech.

Frankly, it makes one question whether outrage is really a useful response at all.

> Are you suggesting these gender topics have a comparable consensus ratio?

Uh, yeah. A comparable ratio of social scholars are convinced that sexism is a major cause of the power disparity between the sexes.

> If so, evidence of this consensus should be trivial for you to produce.

It is. Like I said, it's on fucking Wikipedia!

> A humiliation and dependence that none of the outraged people actually lived through.

Really? You must lead a charmed life. Do you have any idea how many women experience sexual harassment at work every year in the US alone?

> It's amazing that women could put up with the insane discrimination and sexism to achieve gender parity in so many other male dominated fields, like law and medicine, all without needing the outrage machine, but they are somehow powerless against a bunch of nerds who, by and large, just want to play with cool tech.

Ha! Are you aware of the "outrage machine" (or "political action", in the professional academic jargon) that was required to get us to the point where women are even allowed to practice medicine or at all (or to vote)? That achievement wasn't gained by "putting up" with anything. You think "this is outrage?! Take a look what it took to get women the right to vote in Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette#Early_20th_century...

I always find it funny (and indicative of a complete ignorance of the subject) when people think that feminists today have taken it too far (of course, conservatives often acknowledge the justice of past progress yet claim that this time it's too much).

The fight with nerds isn't the longest or hardest -- far from it; it's just the most recent.

> Frankly, it makes one question whether outrage is really a useful response at all.

That is a good question, but one that history can thankfully answer. Yes, it turns out that outrage can be extremely effective. Of course, it's hard not to be outraged in the face of injustice (just look at how outraged some people were after Damore's firing, even though this is a truly rare occurrence, and he did cause a scene that required the CEO of Google to cut short his family vacation).

> Uh, yeah. A comparable ratio of social scholars are convinced that sexism is a major cause of the power disparity between the sexes.

That's not the claim being disputed. Either you're trying to participate in too many threads and losing the context, or you have serious reading comprehension problems.

> It is. Like I said, it's on fucking Wikipedia!

Show it. You keep saying this, yet your comment history cites no specific link showing this consensus, and particularly for the topic we're actually discussing, not the topic you seem to think we're discussing.

> Do you have any idea how many women experience sexual harassment at work every year in the US alone?

Every single one. But that's a false equivalence to what we were talking about.

> Take a look what it took to get women the right to vote in Britain:

Now look at the effect these actions actually had in convincing people. Public opinion only turned in their favour when world war I started and they ceased all violent activities and showed how they could positively contribute to society by stepping into traditional male roles.

> I always find it funny (and indicative of a complete ignorance of the subject) when people think that feminists today have taken it too far

Yet another straw man. Saying it's taken too far today does not entail feminists didn't also take it too far in the past.

> That is a good question, but one that history can thankfully answer. Yes, it turns out that outrage can be extremely effective.

It also led to the election of Donald Trump. Yay for outrage!

Like our other thread, it's clear you have some particular axe to grind and instead of addressing my specific arguments, you're shouting down some imaginary opponent. This is an unfortunate tactic employed on both sides, and I frankly don't have the patience for it.

> This is an unfortunate tactic employed on both sides, and I frankly don't have the patience for it.

Obviously, I think this is exactly what you're doing...

Your claim of rampant sexual harassment causing women to leave the tech industry does not seem to hold merit.

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_Stemming%20the%20Tid...

That's not at all what I claimed. There is rampant sexual harassment, not just in tech but in many fields, but we should have been horrified indeed to learn that sexual harassment is so pervasive as to drive a large percentage of women out. What we see is that culture drives away a significant portion of women.

Minor problem: that's EXACTLY what the media and outrage engine is specifying.

That's not what I see, so I guess both our views on what the media and "outrage engine" are doing are very much shaped by our political views.

What am I supposed to see here? (Are you, by any chance, be confusing the word "sexism" with the word "misogyny"?)

You're supposed to see that the media considers it to be malevolently sexist. Redefining the terminology so that "sexism" somehow is a neutral term is, for lack of a better phrase, "not an argument".

I don’t see it. I certainly see many references to it as a bad thing that needs addressing, just like germs are a real and serious problem that needs fighting, but that doesn’t mean that the people who spread germs do it with the intent to cause others harm. So I don’t see “malevolent sexism”, and I don’t see references to Damore as a misogynist.