zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
Larry Summers and no females

>>seydor+F1
Summers would tell you that women don’t have the necessary “intrinsic aptitude”. Of course the intrinsic aptitude in question is being able to participate in a nepotistic boy’s club.

>>antonv+44
What Summers would point out is that boys do better at maths, which is true. In fact, in the UK, the only time boys have had worse results in maths was when exams were cancelled during Covid and teachers (hint: primarily female) were allowed to dish out grades. Girls suddenly shot ahead. When exams resumed, boys took the lead again.

But don't notice anything from that. That would be sexist, right Anton?

>>jadams+L9
First, Summers’ sexist claims were much broader than that.

Second, yes, you are being sexist, and irrational. What you’re doing is exactly the same as the reasons that it’s racist and irrational to say “whites are better at x”.

You’re cherry picking data to examine, to reach a conclusion that you want to reach. You’re ignoring relevant causal factors - or any causal factors at all, in fact, aside from the spurious correlation you’ve assumed in your conclusion.

You’re ignoring decades of research on the subject - although in your defense, you’re probably just not aware of it.

Most irrationally of all, you’re generalizing across an entire group, selected by a factor that’s only indirectly relevant to the property you’re incorrectly generalizing about.

As such, “sexist” is just a symptom of fundamentally confused and under-informed thinking.