So please stop justifying the parents intentions. I do not care about them, or his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation.
If my comment conveyed to you any such meaning it is either your own biases coloring your interpretation, or a shortcoming of my own writing ability.
> It is not unfortunate that the parent cannot talk openly about his misogynistic interpretation of the success of the few women in tech he’s observed
How do you know that his interpretation is misogynistic?
Also, what I intended to call out as unfortunate was not that he could not talk about misogynistic interpretation; but rather that he could not talk about any interpretation, be it misogynistic or not.
> If the parents interpretation of the success of women in tech is reverse discrimination...
Is this his interpretation?
> The very real numbers that we see today are that women are severely underrepresented in tech
I do not see how this point is relevant to anything I said; and I have made it explicitly clear that I have no intention of discussing this topic on this thread.
> his freedom to express his non-explicit but actually really misogynistic interpretation.
If this was his intention, he failed miserably at it. As I said above, I have no idea what his interpretation is.
Sorry, but this is a lie. As hard as you might try to be an unfair adjudicator of this conversation, the parent has made it pretty clear what his intent was, as you point out in your desire to avoid engaging in it:
> and I have made it explicitly clear that I have no intention of discussing this topic on this thread.
And there it is. You don't have to say something explicitly to mean it. I've repeatedly tried to tell you that this isn't something you can just mention and pretend to not engage in. The very mention of that anecdote was a nod in the direction of misogyny. You don't need to go through the history of the parent to make a confirmed, attested judgement on the parents character, that one statement he made is good enough to prove that.
I think I can guess which camp you fall into. I don't think I have given any indication on this thread as to which camp I fall into. I have absolutely no idea which camp parent falls into, and I don't see how anyone could infer from their short post on this thread (I haven't looked through their history, nor do I intend to).
Parent made an anecdotal observations. You are free to argue that the observation is wrong (as other responders have)..
I suppose you could even engage with the underlying issue that parent specifically avoided. Although I suspect that you would, unfortunately, run into precisely the issue that parent was afraid of.
At this point, I think it is clear that this subject is toxic. That is very unfortunate, but probably one of the only things all sides can agree on. Given that, we should do our best to quarantine the toxicity and not let it infect adjacent topics.
In the case of parent, what other options did they have? If they must omit the observation entirely, we are ignoring an entirely on-point observation for fear that it has polically incorrect implications for an unrelated or tangentially related subject. If they omit the problamatic condition, they are outright lieing, and introducing a false anecdote into the discourse.