Go back and reread. Here’s the quote of what he said in response to the 50% harassment rate that was in a study he had quoted (although he failed to read it carefully and thought it was less or probably wouldn’t have quoted from it):

“I’m opposed to sexual harassment, but don’t think we should mandate or expect gender equity in every profession. And I don’t think that every difference between men and women is the result of oppression.”

In other words, I’m going to ignore that half of all women in STEM are discriminated against (which I’ve already stipulated to), in favor of talking about how we don’t actually need gender equity and there’s no real oppression going on. C’mon…..

and here’s what I said in response:

“No one in the world thinks that every profession has to be 50/50, but there is a huge difference between quotas and artificial barriers and if anyone male/female/non-binary is prevented from doing work that they have the interest in and aptitude for, that’s an issue. And if 50% of the women (or even 40%) in a profession are being routinely harassed, that’s an artificial barrier. That’s a nationwide culture of discrimination.

A decent person, which I will assume that you are, ought to care more about that rather than spending their time and effort to prove that women are falsely feeling like victims — particularly when you are quoting from the study that shows that they actually are victims much of the time.”

So, where do you stand? What’s your level of intellectual integrity? Want to keep defending assholes or what?

Dispelling cultural myths with research-driven stories. My favorite word is “specious.” Not fragile like a flower; fragile like a bomb! Twitter @ElleBeau

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store