“Explanations” Of Under-Representation By Privileged Assholes
May 3, 2008
Zuska has a fascinating discussion going on concerning the curious fact that shitbag privileged assholes always seem to come slithering out from under whatever skanky rocks they reside to “explain” the fact that the non-privileged are under-represented in some endeavor because of some essential aspect of human biology, psychology, or other immutable inevitable feature of human nature, and never because of their fucking lack of privilege.
Now personally, whenever I hear a privileged asshole explain that the reason why the non-privileged aren’t equally represented in some endeavor is due to “genetics” or “lack of interest” or some other cockamamie essentialist bullshit he pulled right the fuck out of his ass, I tend to be pretty fucking skeptical! It’s just a little bit too convenient to just be a coincidence that dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence on the ground leads right the fuck to maintenance of the privilege status quo, you know what I’m saying?
What lead to this discussion at Zuska’s was a comment on another post of Zuska’s made by some dumb fuck concerning the severe under-representation of women in engineering:
I’m simply saying that it is [foolish] to expect female engineering enrollment to be equal to men’s enrollment, if engineering is a field which is, statistically speaking, more attractive to men than to women.
Zuska cleverly took down this shithead’s pathetic excuse for an argument by translating his fake-ass scientific-sounding dumbassery into clear English:
There aren’t a lot of women in engineering. I personally believe this is because women just don’t like Teh Engineering. They don’t like engineering because engineering is for Teh Men. Engineering is for men because it is what men do. It is not for women because it is not what women do. There is Boy Stuff, and there is Girl Stuff. Engineering is Boy Stuff.
Well, Mr. Asshat Apologist responded in a hurt and indignant tone (waaahh, waaahh, you feminists are so mean!!! you are soo misinterpreting me!!) that he was just making a “conditional statement”:
I was making a conditional statement: if it is true that engineering is more attractive to men than it is to women, then expecting, in enrollment, the same number of men as women is an unattainable goal.
I never claimed to know this for a fact, but merely accepted that it is possible, given that men and woman seem to have (as a group or on the whole) different interests. I’m not saying that either is better or worse, just different.
Yeah, it’s all just a fascinating dispassionate intellectual exercise in the positing of “conditional statements”, old chap.
Of course, it’s these same fucking asshole douchemonkeys spewing ridiculous buffoonery like dumbfuck Mr. Asshat Apologist’s wholly speculative “conditional statement” designed to “raise the possibility” solely “for purposes of discussion” that women might not be interested in engineering (i.e., a load of wholesale bullshit pulled right the fuck out of his ass) who bitch and moan endlessly about how detailed exhaustive quantitative analyses of actual fucking reality like Sherry Towers’s are “not well-supported by statistics” or “incomplete” or “insufficient to establish discrimination”. Fucking hypocritical scumbags.
Here’s the fucking deal: If you are arguing from a position of privilege that the existence of under-representation of the non-privileged is not a consequence of your privilege, the motherfucking burden of proof is on you to prove it. Pulling speculative shit out of your ass that happens to reinforce the status quo, while at the same time shifting the burden of proof to the non-privileged and setting an absurd standard for satisfaction of that burden does not hold any fucking water.
We’re onto your fucking game. Capisce?