Comment by rada | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rada | Hacker News Reader

I hate ad hominem arguments but in this case I feel I must. The author, although a woman herself, has a clearly defined agenda that smacks of misogynism. Here is a telling quote from her interview with the Esquire Magazine:

There are a lot of homely women in women's studies. Preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches - they're just mad at the beautiful girls.

Every one of her articles is based on exact same formula: women claim they are disadvantaged, men are disadvantaged.

    ARE THERE MORE GIRL GENIUSES?
    American boys have become second-class 
    citizens in the nation's schools.

    THE EQUAL PAY DAY REALITY CHECK
    The claim that American women face wage 
    discrimination is groundless.

    BASELESS BIAS AND THE NEW SECOND SEX
    Claims of bias against women in academic 
    science are exaggerated; meanwhile men are 
    becoming the second sex in American higher 
    education.

    WHY CAN'T A WOMAN BE MORE LIKE A MAN?
    Evidence of gender bias in math and science 
    is flimsy at best.

I wouldn't rely on her musings for intelligent insight. The studies she presents are cherry-picked and her arguments are so one-sided and cliched it barely qualifies as an opinion piece. The recent article in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-...) was much more balanced and insightful.

I don't even understand the point of your ad-hominem.

The author is being formulaic. So what? She is a one-issue writer, and therefore her opinions are incorrect?

Ok, let's say someone had written an opinion piece on how Windows is unfairly portrayed compared to Linux. You read it, and it just seems, I don't know, off. Perhaps it's the fact that they illustrated their point with a feature comparison graph dated to 1991 (a fair comparison to the author's use of 1932 data), or maybe it just reads as a long-winded rant as opposed to an intelligent inquiry into the subject of operating systems. You look into it a bit, and it turns out that the author was once quoted as saying that Linus Torvalds is just a loser, jealous of Bill Gates's wealth. You look at their other articles, and see that every one is the same old template: yay Windows, nay Linux, yay numbers that support my opinion, nay numbers that do not. What would you conclude, if not that the author is, indeed, incorrect? I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence-be-damned "one-sided" writer.

I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence-be-damned "one-sided" writer.

The author of this article provided infinitely more evidence than you did (something / nothing = infinity). You've provided no evidence that she is selectively picking data which supports her. You also provide no evidence she is incorrect.

All you did is point out that she wrote about similar issues in the past, which would be true of most articles written by most reporters.

By the way, the citation from 1932 that you criticize is consistent with more recent results. For instance:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2889145

I'm going to speculate that your objection to her is more ideological than methodological...

Huh? Now it's my turn to say, I don't even understand your point.

Her citation from 1932 is "IQ Percentage By Gender" and your citation from 2008 (that I think you mean to say supports the 1932 numbers) is "Gender Similarities For Math Performance". Moreover, your citation is behind a paywall so that we cannot see any numbers at all. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to some unidentified mass in a bag that we have no way of judging beyond the fact that the bag is labeled "oranges".

And no, I didn't just point out that she is a one-issue writer. Please re-read my post, instead of "speculating" about my ideologies which you know nothing about.

My citation shows women have less variance in intellect than men (but very similar mean). Sorry for the paywall, but unfortunately that is where academic research lives.

Here is a newspaper summary: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html

As for your post, my mistake. I missed the "she is a one issue writer, therefore mysoginist" bit probably because I assumed your post had some sort of logic to it.

You do know that when you quote a post, you have to quote something the poster actually said, right? Where did I say "she is a one issue writer, therefore a mysoginist"?

She is a one-issue writer, and therefore her opinions should be taken with a larger-than-average grain of salt. How much assumed-distortion is there in an article written by Billy Graham, or the Pope, or one of the more violent terrorist groups, or a super-conservative/liberal/communist/large-international-business-owner, especially when talking about their opposition?

I'm not taking a side in this, just pointing out the intent of the post.

I think you're failing to distinguish between an argument about objective reality and an argument about emotion and belief.

The Pope and Al Qaeda want to persuade you that their belief system is the best. Galileo wanted to prove to you that the earth revolved around the sun. Two different types of arguments.

So... are you saying that the author is trying to persuade us her belief system is the best, or that she's trying to prove objective reality?

And remember that belief of a certain state of objective reality is still, to outsiders, merely belief, not fact, especially in an area like this, which is full of misleading information on all sides.

I take issue with your use of the phrase "smacks of misogynism" for two reasons:

1) it makes you sound extremely pretentious

2) it's a totally inaccurate characterization of the piece

Seriously, I wish people would stop throwing the word "misogyny" around like an article. Misogyny is the categorical hatred of women. Very, very few people/pieces are actually misogynistic. Someone is not a misogynist because you suspect that they dislike women. In particular, this article is in no way misogynistic by any stretch of the imagination. Not even the quote you provided is misogynistic. It's quite cynical and quite a stretch, but it doesn't signify a hatred of women in any way.

This is something that really pisses me off in general. People need to stop abusing the English language to push their ideological agendas. I'm going to start calling people out on it from now on, and I hope that other HN readers are inspired to do likewise.

I hear your point against over-using the word "Misogynism". However, I just looked it up in the dictionary and it says "hatred, dislike, or mistrust" of women. So I would say that yes, by definition dislike of women is misogynistic.

What I don't get though, is why my "smacks of misogynism" makes me sound extremely pretentious, while your "characterization of the piece" or "ideological agendas" get a pass? Granted, English is a 2nd language for me but am I wrong that those are equally "big" words?

Even if we agree to define "misogyny" a bit more broadly, the piece isn't indicative of misogyny on the part of the author. That's what I take issue with: not that the accusation you make is so terrible, but that it is baseless.

As for "smacks of misogynism" vs. "characterization of the piece" and "ideological agendas", it's not about the vocabulary that's being used. It's that the phrase "smacks of misogynism" is weaselly--what does it mean? If you think that the author is a misogynist, say so. If you think that the piece is misogynistic, say that. It doesn't help that the piece doesn't, in fact, "smack of misogynism".

Methinks you can't find enough fault with the content of my post so you keep picking on the words that I've used. First, they were pretentious, then they were weaselly, and finally you didn't understand the meaning at all. Do you really not know what is meant by "smacks of"? Well, here you go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smack

So to be clear, I meant what I meant, that the author's agenda has a touch of dislike of women in it. What's funny, I bet if you saw a quote where someone said, people in African American Studies are just jealous of the white race's success, you would call that person out as being a flat out racist, yet when you see a quote that says, people in Women's Studies are just jealous of the beautiful girls, you pick on me for merely saying that it smacks of misogyny.

(By the way, I wish people didn't put words in my mouth all the time. I never said that the piece on its own smack of misogyny, I said that the author's agenda smacks of misogyny. Although an article that uses 1932 data to back up the portrayal of recent trends really is a bit desperate, wouldn't you agree)?

The author's "agenda" * doesn't * "[have] a touch of dislike of women in it", though. It has a touch of dislike of a particular type of academic feminist, but 99.99% of women are not members of this group. If I said that I disagreed with the tactics of the Black Panthers, would that make me a racist? Of course not.

Your African American Studies analogy is totally disingenuous anyway. You are trying to map the author's insinuation that certain types of academic feminists are jealous of beautiful girls to the insinuation that people in African American studies are jealous of * whites . A much more honest analogy would be that what the author said is like a black person saying that members of a particular extreme fringe of the NAACP are jealous of, say, blacks who have had success in business. Would that be racist? No, not at all! * It might be divisive, cynical, unfair, or any number of other things, but it would patently * not * be racist. The statement says nothing about black people as a group; it accuses a particular * political faction * of having ulterior motives.

And that 1932 study used perfectly valid methodology and studied a huge population. Asserting that it * can't * be relevant simply because it's * old * is just more sophistry.

Oh ok, I see your point. I have never been inside a Women's Studies classroom, are they across-the-board a "black panthers" kind of thing?

I have no idea. I've never been inside one either. But the author was criticizing--well, insulting--a political faction, not expressing a dislike of women.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com