> What if this reliance on rationalism and this idea of exceptionalism makes it easy to dismiss what you don’t experience first-hand?<p>Indeed. It's amazing how many self-described rational people fall back on "I've never seen it, therefore it doesn't exist and you are lying" when it comes to uncomfortable or challenging questions. It's very easy to end up performing a kind of rationalism identity politics, especially when men end up defending "rational" men from "irrational" women.<p>> "being unbiased is a vital part of being smart"<p>(From a quote within the article)<p>I disagree, having known a lot of smart people. There's definitely a <i>skill</i> of being able to step back from a situation and look at it from other angles. That doesn't mean people apply it by default to themselves. Nobody likes rationally evaluating their own flaws. Some of the smartest people I knew had chaotic personal lives because of this.
Amazingly how much emphasis is placed on stories (anecdote) and 'I <i>feel</i> that' when this person has no personal experience with the subject.<p>It looks like it has become too popular to write stories about how women are oppressed. I'd much rather see articles mention specific case studies with FACTS describing exactly what actions those perpetrators took in order to discriminate.<p>Without knowing the most common discretely identifiable actions (hopefully with statistics to back them up!) how can we decide where to target resources at?
I never experienced direct harassment, but I see chauvinism all the time.<p>People not hiring Chinese, because they will steal their IP.<p>Recruiters who wanna check the "assets" of female applicants.<p>People who hate on women, because they aren't dressed properly.<p>Managers watching pornography for all to see at the workplace.<p>All the talks about the guys, dudes and bros.<p>The only thing female co-workers did that bothered me, was being too touchy.