Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men

These notes are old and were written while reading — they don’t necessarily reflect my current views.

“Tho it’s arguably profitable” That’s the whole problem; it’s not. If it were, literally every investor in the world would have to be more sexist than they are greedy. That’s not even close to realistic. Therefore the most troubling chapter for me is “The myth of the meritocracy”.

She points out examples of behaviour that is more common in men than in women and indicates this to be a problem. She does explain that those traits are not all due to discrimination against women, which is a refreshingly sensible perspective from the feminist side of argument. The question then is, if it’s a problem that behaviour that is e.g. valued in coders like mindless dedication / obsessive behaviour (as she correctly points out a sign of immaturity), is more common and extreme in men? I don’t think so I don’t think you could make a sensible argument that we should take someones free choice in becoming a coder. The problem I have with the reasoning is that it indicates there being a problem, but not spelling it out which would then get her in a position where she needs to propose an alternative (which I don’t think can be sensibly made).

All this sounds rather harsh on the book, even tho so far I’m positively surprised by it. Many criticisms (especially in the asymmetry of the obligation of birth) is really convincing and made me more openminded about a change in policy. Also the criticism of harsh structural discrimination against women in other countries is an objectively important topic. I do agree which of course condemning such behaviour and structure. My only critique there is that it is a little vaguely written, which lets the reader see these studies from Iraq etc. as representative for the western world. As I said there are also things in the western world to criticise, but a distinction needs to be made, as the situation in e.g. Iraq is not comparable.

The point that women seem to be more modest when it comes to self-nomination for promotion or self-citing in research, is probably true but non in the slightest unjust.

Part V is again about economics and it’s just a terrible misreading of what economists do or want. She does not understand the GDP and its implication on policy. No serious economist ever said that you should just maximise GDP; that would indeed be idiotic. Unpaid labour is not a problem in these calculations! No matter the actual size of them, policy suggestions would not change. Also the “big bad corporations evade taxes” bit is a ludicrous as ever.

Just to hit a more positive note again, in order to paint a more accurate picture of my experience reading this: The Part IV about medicine seems to be pointing to a giant problem, that of course needs to be addressed.

Democracy as a system is per definition not sexist! Everyone has the right to vote! This can’t be biased!