Scott Adams' Blog

Is the United States a Patriarchy or a Matriarchy? (Part 2)

Posted November 25th, 2015 @ 11:26am in #gender

Read Part 1, a prior post, before reading this.

The claim we explored yesterday is that there are substantially more women voters than men, and therefore women have more political power – in that limited sense – than men. (We’ll discuss the other forms of power later.)

Many of you had objections to the preliminary verdict. I will address your objections here and render an updated verdict. (All verdicts in the Rationality Engine are subject to change. Keep that in mind.)

0 Comments

Is the United States a Patriarchy or a Matriarchy? (Part 1)

Posted November 24th, 2015 @ 8:23am in #gender #politics #voting

Today we start the Rationality Engine (invented in this blog) to see if the process can settle for us the question of whether the United States is a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

Here we stipulate that the country has been a patriarchy from its founding until modern times. The claim we are testing is that the country has recently transformed from a patriarchy to a matriarchy.

0 Comments

The Value of Men

Posted June 25th, 2015 @ 9:39am in #marriage #drought #gender

I live in drought country (California) and this place is starting to turn into a prequel for Mad Max. Every other pickup truck on the road has huge water containers strapped to the back. That’s because the local waste water treatment plant gives away recycled water (non-drinkable) to anyone who wants to keep their lawn alive.

0 Comments

Science Fails Again (to communicate) on Gender Issues

Posted March 13th, 2015 @ 10:41am in #gender #workplace #bias

As a clarification, I have little interest in the politics of gender discrimination in the workplace. But the psychology of it fascinates me like few things have.

I doubt I have seen worse arguments on both sides of an issue. Most people identify as either a man or a woman, so the “my team” problem overwhelms our rational capacity. No one, including me, can come anywhere near objectivity on this issue. So how do you make rational decisions on a topic in which no human has even the slightest potential to be rational?

I like the challenge. And few people would be reckless enough to go where I plan to go on this.

Every time I see an article on the Internet about gender issues in the workplace, I see these two opposing comments:

1. There are many studies that show gender bias. For example, teachers give better grades on math tests to male students, but the difference vanishes when the tests have no name on them. Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In, has lots of references to similar study results, or so I hear. And Vivian Giang got some of you riled up with examples here.

2. Another set of folks (all men) invariably point me to studies that suggest there is no pay difference between men and women once you adjust for experience and time on the job. And I hear there are studies saying there is no difference for younger women just entering the workplace.

How can both views be true?

So I declare a link war.

I appoint myself the judge in this contest. Give me links to studies that support your point of view. I will assess those studies and pick a winner. Or I might declare that the studies are not clear when viewed in total. I will ask any interested parties (including Vivian Giang) to comment on the reliability and usefulness of the studies.

I have no idea how this will turn out. But I think you need to know my starting bias to assess my judging skills.

Keep in mind that the POINT of this is my ignorance. And my bias. I put it on full display for you because I think that is helpful on this issue. If you don’t know what others are thinking, you can not hope to communicate effectively. So as a public service, I present my biased, ignorant, male perspective. But I am open to revising my opinion based on data. Would you ask any more of me?

Here is my starting bias:

1. Gender discrimination in the workplace is a big problem, according to some types of studies and countless first-hand accounts. With so much smoke, I assume there is fire.

2. The problem of gender discrimination is curiously invisible to men, and that includes me. All I see is a confused ball of incomplete thinking on all sides. But that tells us nothing about how big the problem is. Cognitive dissonance is a reasonable hypothesis for why lots of folks fail to see the obvious. I see no reason to exclude myself from the ranks of the deluded.

3. My working hypothesis is that studies showing gender bias in controlled tests don’t translate into the workplace as pay differentials – at least in this country – because educated adults are on the alert for gender bias. So we use our reason to compensate for the bias, if for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits. Any time I am involved in hiring, the risk of unintentional bias is always top of mind. And since men have a biological impulse to be successful and powerful to attract quality mates, hiring the right employees (and avoiding lawsuits) is in our best interest.

4. Some men are bullies and assholes. And most men are assholes at least some of the time. When men are bullies and assholes to each other, we interpret it as exactly that. But if I observe those same bullies and assholes mistreating a woman, I interpret it as sexism. I assume others see it the same way.

5. I have also blogged that I think women should have a few superior rights to men because they handle the vital function of reproduction. In general, society grants extra rights to folks who take on extra responsibility. That’s why cops can speed, soldiers can kill, and so on. One example of extra rights in this context is that I think only women should have a vote on abortion laws.

Things get thornier when you are talking about a workplace with pregnant women, potentially pregnant women, and moms. Big companies can absorb some extra friction for the larger benefit of society, but small ones do not have that option. If you own a small business, you don’t want to have two of your three employees out on maternity leave at the same time, to pick a worst-case scenario. A rational small business owner will discriminate in that case and hope to get away with it. And a rational victim of discrimination in that case will sue. That part of the story seems clear to everyone. And I have not heard a proposed solution. But if a proposed solution provided superior rights for women without hurting small businesses, I can imagine that working for me.

6. The other day a good friend who works as a massage therapist was describing a time in her past she was a victim of gender discrimination. The story sounded convincing to me. Then I asked if she knew I would not have considered her as my massage therapist if she were a man.

Cricket noises.

Personally, I have willfully discriminated by gender in my business dealings at least … oh, a hundred times. And every time it was in favor of women, simply because I prefer the energy. I spend way too much time with men because of shared interests. I need balance in my life, so I bend the rules to get it. I have never considered using a male real estate broker, for example. I get the same service from a woman and it is a great break from the dude-centric rest of my life.

0 Comments

Military Almost Done Building Flying Dragons

Posted March 12th, 2015 @ 11:31am in #war #drones #lasers #gender #3D printers

Did you hear that the U.S. military is developing flying dragons that shoot laser beams from their eyes? They don’t say that directly, but you can see the parts coming together.

A drone is about halfway to being a flying dragon already. And recently the military tested a laser weapon that destroyed a truck at a distance. It is only a matter of time before the military miniaturizes laser weapons and puts them on drones.

0 Comments