However, take the Harvard studies on implicit bias in racism:

Yea, I understand that subconscious attitudes can be ferreted out using various testing strategies. That’s not news; you take a mixed race kindergarten class, and the kids sort themselves out by race.

But that doesn’t mean that they believe themselves to be superior, the others to be inferior, and isn’t any indication of future discrimination.

To me, the issue is discrimination, not bias. As you seem to want to argue, bias is somewhat innate. Fine. It would be nice if that were not the case, but it is.

But having said that, it’s not really germane to a just society. I really don’t care if a particular business owner is a KKK member or not, as long as he hires and fires on an indiscriminate basis. Hobby Lobby is about the most overtly Christian large company I can think of, and our local store has no shortage of headscarf wearing Muslims working there.

So, the point of disputation is that bias is necessarily connected to discrimination. It’s obvious that anyone who discriminates is biased, but it doesn’t logically follow that everyone who is biased discriminates.

Same holds true for gender.

I’d like to learn from your assertion that “statistics lead one to the conclusion that men feel entitled to act in antisocial ways towards women” is unanswerable.

There are a number of reasons why a man might act in an antisocial way towards a woman. “Entitlement” is an odd word that gets thrown around these days that would be *one* of those reasons. My sense is that it’s used not because it’s accurate, but because it advances the narrative that antisocial behavior is somehow innate to our culture, rather than simply Some Men Acting Badly.

I think you can use testing to determine if a man is likely to act in an antisocial way. Ferreting out the reason why is a bit more complicated. Hence my point.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.