Even if you could show that your assertion is valid, what of it?
I don't need to go to Paris to know that Paris exists, I simply need evidence and data to draw a rational conclusion, no?
This is a pretty basic epistemological point.
Can one both observe that women have not ever been hired in representative numbers, then turn around and conclude that they would therefore not harass in the same or greater numbers? How does one follow the other? How would you respond to the question of the lesser number of cases reported being because of a lack of opportunity for women to harass?
The article you post admits that the number of women graduating has been growing over time. There hasn't always been a 50% female grad data point. Even if that number were historically constant, it would be irrelevant given that you would have to show women trying to work then being blocked based on gender.
What he does not suggest, but states explicitly, is that it is the avoidance of due process and/or standards of evidence in the pursuit of outcomes that is the contributor to a sense of risk.
It is a rational strategy, though probably not likely in the current US climate, to limit risk at the source. Companies can control who they hire. It is harder to control the degradation of institutions under sustained assault for ideological ends.
Hostility for the latter cannot be conflated with hostility towards a gender, skin color, or whatever other banner one is rallying under on a given day.
Sorry about the Not ME - was frustrated trying to get the website to function yesterday while trying to create an account.
No. There is no utility in contesting the 'patriarchy' narrative within this context. It is sufficient to ask the question of the 'matriarchy' narrative as an alternative to, or a supplement for the 'similarity bias' thesis.
Everyone thinks they are the most talented, hardworking, or creative people in the room. Holding this to be true is human, not a sign of gender or racial bias.
What is the difference between making this point and making the same point by way of gender, or even tall men, or fat ones? Isn't it just a case of finding an ideological flag to rally under?
Can anyone show that that many people of color, or women, or whatever flag, tried to work and were rejected based on their skin color, gender, etc?
Absent those data, how could one rationally conclude what appears to have been irrationally concluded above, which is that there is a conspiracy?
Well, that plus the popular narrative of 'patriarchy'. If one subscribes to that, one is likely to try to organize a 'matriarchy' in response.