Brotopia: Analysis and Review

https://quillette.com/2018/10/12/brotopia-analysis-and-review/

by randomname2 • 8 years ago

44 28 8 years ago

wjnc• 8 years ago

Ok, one thing against the 'data analysis' in OP: if Santa Clara is allegedly male-dominated then the better comparison is number of complaints per million women in the local labour force. The other obvious one is that complaints per capital possibly falls with income. Without correction for that, this offhand denial after a casual data browsing is too easy. My personal ethics suggest that any sector where business is done in sex clubs and hot tubs is shady, but who am I? It's like when Heineken had stocked fridges with beer for meetings. It's not directly female-unfriendly but the social dynamics of meetings change after a few beers. They stopped that a decade ago.

naasking4• 8 years ago

I was about to post a similar point, that he's possibly comparing unequal demographics, and without controlling for that his numbers are probably not meaningful.

Still, he makes plenty of other good points. And as for meetings in sex clubs, I have no doubt that this still occurs in plenty of other fields, even ones that aren't male dominated.

The fact that Chang's book appears long on rumour and short on data is what should disqualify it from being taken seriously.

mhjas2• 8 years ago

Still, he makes plenty of other good points.

Could you summarize, or mention a few? Because I struggle to see much of any merit to the article. It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself. It continues with rhetorically embellished opinions about the book, which most of us haven't read. Then presents a bunch of numbers that we again don't know if they are particularly relevant. Finally it spends most of the rest of the article discussing other theories that the author prefers.

I would expect an analysis like this at least partly present the theories discussed in the book in a relatively natural light to then discuss those theories.

belorn• 8 years ago

I would very much like to see some data that explore how much business is conducted outside of offices per industry sector and where. To me it seems about as common as merger deals being done while the people involved are stone drunk, which I assume must happen somewhere but can't possible be the norm.

cultus• 8 years ago

As the other poster said, this is a standard Quillete article. Incomplete information and faulty reasoning dressed up to discredit progressive causes, and science surrounding these issues. Yes, it should be incredibly obvious that fewer women produces fewer sexual harassment complaints. I bet welding doesn't have too many women complaining abut harassment or discrimination either.

Quillete essentially a crypto, "respectable" outlet of the alt-right. I don't know whether this is a good book or not. It probably isn't. But the review is obviously an excuse to take a swipe at gender equality, while still acting smart and scientific.

craig_peacock• 8 years ago

Text book example of a well researched and qualified article! A much needed breath of fresh air, thank you...

adjkant4• 8 years ago

So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source (on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without separation of type (say, by sexual harassment). That doesn't really show anything beyond the bias of the author. Not to mention the inherent problem with formal complaints vs actual number of incidents that is not discussed at all. As mentioned by others, no accounting for income or any other factors was done either. I wouldn't say any information of value lies in the "analysis" here. Not to say the book is validated, simply that this is clearly hit piece that's trying to disguise itself as a review from any point of neutrality.

romanhn• 8 years ago

Dust jacket refers to the book cover, not the author.

adjkant4• 8 years ago

Whoops, edited accordingly.

bko• 8 years ago

The author of Brotopia made the claim of a toxic environment without evidence. The burden or proof lies on the person making the claim. The author of the piece questions the claim with a single data source. Attacking his source doesn't somehow validate the author of Brotopia

adjkant4• 8 years ago

I said exactly that it doesn't validate the book in my post. But showing a single, very irrelevant stat is not a counterargument either.

malvosenior5• 8 years ago

There are an awful lot of Harvard educated journalists complaining about male privileged nowadays. Chang probably makes more money than most of the techies she attacks in her book. She has her own national television show and now book that's being promoted in the mainstream media. Business Insider called her one of the top 100 influential people in tech. Pretty good for someone who can't code! It doesn't look like this so called discrimination has had any impact on her career.

adjkant4• 8 years ago

What does her career have to do with any of this? Would you like to go the anecdota to data route or are you trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up? Either point doesn't seem very sound, and why be so roundabout with your point? Or are you simply trying to discredit something you disagree with by attacking the author?

malvosenior5• 8 years ago

trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up?

Yes. I'm using her own success as a direct refutation of her argument.

arcaster• 8 years ago

Glad to see more work from Quillette, strongly believe they're one of the only strong less-bias sources of objective journalism in our world today.

aklemm• 8 years ago

That’s like a liberal saying NPR is objective. There is no objective. They might be serious and mostly honest (just like NPR), but Quillette definitely has a bias.

Brotopia: Analysis and Review

Related Stories