Because if there is no sexism, then what needs to be improved? Strategies that have been used in the past, such as affirmative action or quotas arbitrarily seek to create representational parity regardless of the input. That is a bad thing, and you're acting like it's at worst neutral.

Its called burden of proof. And its the core of scientific thinking

we don't automatically put the assumption that gyms are secret powerplants that exist to siphon off energy to feed space aliens at equal likelihood to its negative. Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis so its up you you guys to provide the compelling evidence.

>Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis

It's no more complicated than the hypothesis of the existence of false accusations of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated. Beginning with the assumption that sexism is not a big problem only gives the appearance of neutrality.

In reality, we probably all agree that sexism exists and false accusations exist, and we're trying to determine how prevalent each is. That is an extremely difficult task.

No...I don't think it works that way. You can't bootstrap the likelihood of one hypothesis by proposing a counterhypothesis. The existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't become more likely because someone hypothesizes that there is a global conspiracy to cover up the existence of said Bunny.

BTW, the 'false accusation' movement in sofar as it exists is a drop in the bucket compared to the sexism victimhood industry.

>sexism victimhood industry

This is your hypothesis, which illustrates my point perfectly. You are not merely refuting the existence of a certain degree of sexual harassment, but you're hypothesizing that a "sexism victimhood industry" exists. The fluff about "hypothesis" and "scientific thinking" is just useful subterfuge.

Yes, I made an additional point but that doesn't invalidate the main response that a bigger burden of proof than men/women are different == MUST BE GLOBAL THERMONUCULAR SEXISM is on its feminist advocates. If you're upset that I think the sexism victimhood industry is bigger than its opposition you can set me straight on how billions of dollars over decades, tony institutes, college majors, federal/state regulations, corporate campaigns etc etc are equaled or exceeded by a few neckbeards complaining on Roosh.com.

It absolutely does invalidate the main response, as was my original point. Your position isn't neutral or scientific; erroneously bringing hypothesis testing into the discussion is an attempt at appearing objective, and nothing more.

Okay, I'll bite...tell me how the burden of proof is not on those postulating a global conspiracy of sexism?

The same reason we don't assume the accused is guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

We do assume the accused of rape or sexual harassment against a woman is guilty though. In that case, it's guilty until proven innocent. Allegations only are enough to ruin a man's whole career.

From your link: "In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant."

There is absolutely a moderate level of evidence of discrimination against women.

My BIL is on the hiring committee for his CS dept at a state school. They recently have been barred from ranking candidates because it was embarrassing for the administration when they would offer positions to lower ranked candidates while no-offering higher ranked candidates.

Though, he said, in most cases it doesn't matter, because the lower ranked candidates who received offers were usually preferred minorities who received several offers from other more desirable schools.