You in particular did provide metrics, so I am not complaining! Although, to be perfectly honest, I do think your delivery is sort of passive aggressive or disingenuous… you know that nearly everyone, when discussing gender inequality, use the term to mean that women are disadvantaged. You provide metrics to evaluate improvement in areas where men are disadvantaged—i.e. your underlying assumption/hypothesis is the opposite of everyone else, but you don’t acknowledge it.
And I am not saying that I agree with that majority view. All I am saying is that since you know that, to sort of pretend that it’s not the case is a bit strange.
You in particular did provide metrics, so I am not complaining! Although, to be perfectly honest, I do think your delivery is sort of passive aggressive or disingenuous… you know that nearly everyone, when discussing gender inequality, use the term to mean that women are disadvantaged. You provide metrics to evaluate improvement in areas where men are disadvantaged—i.e. your underlying assumption/hypothesis is the opposite of everyone else, but you don’t acknowledge it.
Not on LessWrong, but in general yes. But this is in part because most people assume that on almost all important metrics women are disadvantaged.
And I am not saying that I agree with that majority view. All I am saying is that since you know that, to sort of pretend that it’s not the case is a bit strange.