Sexism, Racism and Individualism

People-- normal people, people I engage in everyday conversation-- doubt the validity of statistics far more now than I can remember happening at any point in my life. Some of this may simply be the nature of the conversations I'm having now, but I think some of it is the nature of the times. With the Internet, it's possible to find studies finding contradictory facts on anything, and the way that people design their statistical surveys can be arranged specifically to find an expected outcome.

Check more after the jump.

I'm not a huge fan of statistics myself, but for an entirely different reason. As opposed to thinking the statistics I find are made up, my problem with statistics is that people give them context that might not necessarily be accurate.

I don't doubt the validity of statistics that I hear, for the most part. I think that people typically do this only to statistics that are in contrast to their own personally held beliefs, but then choose to accept the validity of statistics that support them. It's the sociological equivalent of only listening to your peers who listen to you, or preaching to the converted. The doubt I have in statistics is that they have to mean something.

I'll give you an example. There are loads of statistics detailing the presence of far more males than females in the business world; there are only a small handful of female CEOs. I don't doubt that this is the case, but when asked what it means I say: "I think it means there are far more male CEOs and than female CEOs. And nothing else."

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist in the business world, and I'm not saying that sexism doesn't exist in general. I just don't know if an enumeration of the genders of national CEOs is a proving factor in determining the answer to that question.

To fully disclose: I do think sexism happens in business and in life in general.

See, I'm an Individualist. I believe that any case of -isms, be it sexism, racism, ageism, etcetera, has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. A white kid beating up a black kid could be a hate crime, inspired by racism. Or it could be a case of one person getting into a fight with another person, and race had absolutely nothing to do with it. Without looking at the details of the individuals involved, it's impossible to say.

I think part of this is our mass consumption model of obtaining information. News reporters need to be able to make complex situations simple enough for millions of people across the nation-- across the globe-- to understand, but in pandering to that method of consuming the details of what, the why is often left unsketched, and people fill in the blanks based on the labels of these -isms. In same cases, it's appropriate, but in the moments when it's not, we demean the individuals involved by claiming it to be so.

Not every multi-racial crime is racially motivated. Not every promotion of a man over a woman is gender-biased. Some of them are, yes, but to make the claim effectively, we have to examine the merits of an individual case on its own basis. Otherwise, we're just scribes and the Pharisees, casting the first stone.