"Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister's."

wub1234 · 2015-12-08T16:49:35+00:00

The quotation is off the record and we can't entirely corroborate it.

But I have to agree with the OP that this attitude does not help women who want to go into those fields.

GaiusScaevolus · 2015-12-08T15:50:44+00:00

Trans dude walked around uncomfortable in his own skin living what he thought was a lie. When his outward form was in line with his inner perception, his stress/anxiety level was reduced, allowing him to produce better quality, more focused work.

Jacksambuck · 2015-12-08T16:16:54+00:00

So much bias. That's why women earn 60% of college degrees, an imbalance roughly equal to the one at the start of second-wave feminism. And they still have tons of women-only scholarships. Their unemployment rate is 20% lower than men.

Here, clear bias against men in academics, not some orchestra no one cares about:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21648632-recruitment-academic-scientists-may-be-skewed-surprising-way-unfairer

It appears that the best way feminism has found to reduce the wage gap is to push men out of education. Maybe you should stop teaching men how to read, that would make women competitive.

dejour · 2015-12-08T17:32:46+00:00

There obviously is bias against women in some cases. Particularly in traditionally male endeavours (like science and the orchestra). There is also bias against men in some areas of life.

That said, the Ben Barres thing is an anecdote. One person made a judgement. And potentially that person did see a Barbara presentation where she fumbled and was unable to answer fair questions. And maybe Ben, having talked about the same stuff for years, gave a polished presentation with convincing answers when critiqued. Really nothing can be proven by that anecdote. I'm pretty sure it is a demonstration of a real issue (male scientists being judged more favorably for the same work), but it doesn't prove anything by itself. If you look hard enough, you could probably find a trans woman that got a better "review" than she did as a man. (And that wouldn't prove anything either.)

The orchestra thing? That's good science and shows that women were being unfairly discriminated against. It's a good thing that auditions are more often done in a blind way now.

KelIy_C · 2015-12-08T16:00:28+00:00

This isn't a Red/Blue issue. This has nothing to do with intersexual relationships or Red Pill concepts.

Yesterday a post about the Santa Barbara shooter, a Muslim woman, was taken down as being irrelevant to this sub. If the mods are going to be consistent, they need to take this post down as it is in the same vein -- it has nothing to do with RP/BP. It has nothing to do with the concepts discussed here.

Mods, please take this post down. It's a shit post through and through.

disposable_pants · 2015-12-08T16:37:33+00:00

Okay TRP. Explain this one. Without using any personal insults at all, explain how the trans guy and the orchestra screening proves there is no bias against females.

I'm not sure that TRP holds as some kind of iviolable law that sexism doesn't exist. That's absurd.

[deleted] · 2015-12-08T17:10:56+00:00

You want people to debate a misinformed comment "a scientist" made? You sure love speculation.

This reads as

"Hey everyone, let's all jump to conclusions based on a single comment and my biased opinion about what it means."

prodigy2throw · 2015-12-08T18:04:46+00:00

People are biased. I'm sure if a Pakistani man was in these situations he would get looked over for a white man. Life is such.

ThorLives · 2015-12-08T19:23:50+00:00

A scientist said this at a conference in response to hearing a presentation by Ben Barres. Problem is, Ben Barres doesn't have a sister.[1] Ben Barres used to be Barbara Barres until he transitioned. He was doing the same work as before. He was presenting the same data. Yet being a man suddenly elevated his work.

You have an anecdote. What can be proved from this? Here's a few possible interpretations of what's going on:

(1) This didn't actually happen. It's an urban myth which has gotten popular because it supports people's beliefs about discrimination against women.

(2) The person who said this does have a gender bias. Extending this anecdote to conclude that "everyone has a gender bias" is jumping to conclusions. It's like walking down the street and overhearing some guy say, "White guys can't play basketball" and then concluding that all of society has a biased belief that white men can't play basketball, and nobody can deny that fact that "society is biased against white guys playing basketball", and isn't that terrible?

(3) Ben's work is sometimes good and sometimes bad. The speaker correctly pointed out that his earlier work wasn't as good. This was interpreted as gender bias because Ben was an woman earlier in his career.

(4) The speaker interpreted Ben's earlier work as bad (even if it wasn't), because sometime people have different opinions about different bodies of work. If you gave someone a whole set of paintings by the same artist, he might think that work #1, #2, and #5 are poor quality while works #3, #4, and #6 are good, and that's the viewers unique and subjective opinion of them. It might've been coincidence that the speaker thought more poorly of Ben's earlier work. This was then erroneously interpreted as gender bias.

Orchestras used to have face to face auditions. Then they decided to have auditions behind a screen so the judges couldn't see the players' faces. Players removed their shoes so they couldn't hear high heels. When judges couldn't see a player, women were 25-46% more likely to get the job[2].

There's a stereotyping effect going on with a lot of jobs. Women are perceived as being worse at "male typical jobs" and males are perceived as being worse at "female typical jobs". With the Orchastra, it's worth noting that there were some instruments (like the tuba) which were perceived as "male" instruments, probably because they were typically perceived as "played by males". Also, larger instruments tend to me more difficult to handle by women, so they are perceived as "male" instruments. When it comes to other instruments, like the flute or harp, those instruments are overwhelmingly played by women. As I recall, there was really no bias against women in those instruments, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually a bias against males in those instruments.

GASTON_TONNERRECOQ · 2015-12-09T18:26:03+00:00

Testosterone supplementation increased "his" drive, yielding better work, and increased "his" confidence, making it better received by all.

Maestro's fuckin love ladies toes like I love tiramisu.

Deviants and academics.

[deleted] · 2015-12-08T15:56:05+00:00

Bias exists, but I think that the bias is twisted to make it seem like men just want to put women down and hold them back. With the orchestras, for example, if men already make up the vast majority of players a person might instinctively believe that men are just better players and be biased towards them. People also forget that women are always going to be more likely to take more time out than men, and there's not a lot you can really do about that. If I'm an employer and I receive two identical CVs, one from Jane and one from John, I'm always going to be inclined to pick John because Jane is far more likely to become a mother and either take large periods of time off or drop out entirely. Plus, when you already have a predominantly male environment there's a tendency to want to keep it that way, guys just get on better with other guys than with girls. Does that make it right? No, but it's important to consider why, instead of already deciding why it's the case and then looking for evidence of it.

Anyone trying to pretend like sexism doesn't exist is just an idiot, but the Ben Barres example isn't really great evidence or proof, it's an isolated example. You couldn't use that as serious evidence, and you shouldn't because people will start to consider it as such instead of seeing it as an incident to get people to just think about the issue.

explain how the trans guy and the orchestra screening proves there is no bias against females.

This doesn't make any sense, btw.

[deleted] · 2015-12-08T16:09:59+00:00

People are sexist, shocking isn't it

leftajar · 2015-12-08T16:52:28+00:00

On average, men try harder than women at professional pursuits, as that's the best path to mating success. Thus, we collectively have lower expectations of women.

It the same reason police racially profile certain ethnic groups -- it's a pragmatic reaction to the reality of group behavior differences.

czerdec · 2015-12-08T22:51:33+00:00

Why should we assume that the quality of the seminar "Ben", the man with XX chromosomes, gave was not far superior to the one "Barbara" gave previously?

"Presenting the same data" is not the only quality on which seminars are judged. There's quality of delivery, there's phrasing, there's the quality of the Q & A session.

You haven't done the work to even make me suspect that this guy is sexist.

And the orchestra anecdote is, I'll certainly grant, evidence for some sexism three and four decades ago in the classical music world. Of definite historical interest, but utterly irrelevant to today. The screened auditions were around 40 years ago. Were you alive then?

Chigibow · 2015-12-09T00:56:30+00:00

Pretending that you're being discriminated against based on data from a random bumfuck orchestra from 1997 is a bitch thing to do.

In reality you have incredible privilege when it comes to hiring that you're willfully choosing to ignore.

That's why women lose. You're too fucking busy pretending to be oppressed and digging up anecdotes from 1997 to actually do any work. You don't realize at all that you're the ones gimping yourselves with this horse shit.

Too many women nowadays just browse funny photos on facebook in a job they don't give a fuck about and then turn around to complain about why they're not getting paid, even though they're already being paid a fuckton more than the value they produce just for having a vagina because companies can't afford to sacrifice their image and must always hire women.

What I'm trying to say is that you'd fully deserve to be discriminated against because there are valid reasons for doing so, but even when your asses are being kissed in every area of life you're still not content. This is the behavior of a poorly raised brat, not a professional that deserves to be respected.

Sepean · 2015-12-09T10:30:52+00:00

Imagine we found a gene that was partly responsible for a person's desired work/life balance. People with version 1 of this gene tend to work more and people with version 2 tend to work less. The difference is statistically significant, but you can still easily find people with version 2 who work more than those with version 1.

Now you're about to hire someone, and you get all the candidates genetic testing so you know what version of the gene they have.

Would you say that the results of the genetic test would have an impact on your likelihood of hiring someone, or is it irrelevant?

What if we found other genes that similarly affected a person's assertiveness, competitiveness, etc.? Would your knowledge of those genes be valuable?

What if we found a gene that made people very likely to have similar symptoms, reduced effectiveness, absence from the workplace and desire for reduced working hours as you see with pregnancy and taking care of children afterwards?

That is the difference between having an X and a Y chromosome, and any employer who doesn't factor that in is frankly a moron.

These sorts of findings, that employers "discriminate" based on sex, would only be objectionable if there was not a statistical difference between the sexes. But there is a big difference between the sexes.

Niess · 2015-12-08T21:17:26+00:00

Honestly, almost no woman is a go getter, i have a company that was 2 staff members in 2011, its now going to be just under 100 staff in the spring of next year.

ONLY one female employee has risen up to the challenge, the rest just don't... we employee 2 to 1 woman to men... The woman work over time, but they don't do anything extra to prove themselves, they think that over time is what gets a promotion rather then anything else.

I am not even red pill, i hate the red pill woman hating side of things... i can see that woman just don't have that aggressive edge that guys learn from constantly being told to toughen up and being made to do it on their own.

Limekill · 2015-12-08T21:28:49+00:00

This hits home in a way that actually hurts.

In my two previous relationships and in two previous jobs that I've had, my ideas were treated as lesser because I'm female.

In one job, I turned a section of a business around (the section I was put in charge of). I was so enthusiastic and had a heap of ideas to bring in lots of customers.

It got so busy they hired someone else - and put him on the same level as me. He was a shocker. He was turning up late, using the company to do favors for his friends and slacking off on the phone to his friends all the time. The business owners just kept disciplining him but didn't take him out of the role. When I went to the company owners with my concerns, I was totally disregarded. This was an almost all-male company and it was like this guy was "one of the boys" and anything could be forgiven.

It only ended when he disappeared one day with company money and goods. I quit the job soon after, happy to leave them in a mess.

[deleted] · 2015-12-08T17:14:22+00:00

Truly fascinating! Surely they didn't transplant his brain too!

Title	"Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister's."
Author	TheShadowyScapula
Upvotes	20
Comments	155
Date	December 8, 2015 3:39 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3vxup8/ben_gave_a_great_seminar_todaybut_then_his_work/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/ben-gave-a-great-seminar-todaybut-then-his-work-is.278032 https://theredarchive.com/post/278032

Comments