3 ms·

As a man, I am embarrassed that you can't see the point he was making. It's not that "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!", he was just pointing out that promoting w

As a man, I am embarrassed that you can't see the point he was making. It's not that "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!", he was just pointing out that promoting women because they have a vagina is just as bad as promoting someone because they have a penis or white skin. Why not promote how well you do your job?

throw-me-away 10y ago
And there you go, immediately assuming that women are only promoted for being women.
- mhuffman 10y ago
  Wow! Did you even read my comment? I was saying that opposite of that!
  - throw-me-away 10y ago
    So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill? If so, I don't see it, and apparently neither does anyone else.
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      > So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill? That statistically can not be the case, right? There are about 50/50 men women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals. So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right? I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?
      - throw-me-away 10y ago
        #1: I don't believe the genders are the same in every way but genitals. There are lots of other physiological and psychological differences, so I've never bought the argument that every industry should have a perfect 50-50 representation. It wouldn't be surprising to me if there was some intrinsic advantage (either environmental or biological) women had over men as managers. #2: In a system in which women are discriminated against, it takes extra grit for women to push through, get hired, and do the work anyway. These are women who really want it very badly. The cream of the crop. Therefore it's not surprising to see them perform better than their male peers on average. #3: In a system in which women have historically been discriminated against, there will be lots of men with jobs they don't deserve. When women begin to enter the workforce in greater numbers, these men will be the first to lose their jobs to rising women. I could go on. There are plenty of reasons why women might be getting promoted faster. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's solely due to affirmative action quotas with no evidence to back that up. The world is more complex than that.
bbctol 10y ago
So it's not "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!" it's "Women are taking our jobs." Seriously, I don't see the distinction being made here.
- mhuffman 10y ago
  How about this distinction? If favoritism (or some sort of -ism) is/was responsible for all of men's achievements or stations -- isn't the converse true? Doesn't that mean that if women rise through the ranks faster than men, that there is preferential treatment? Otherwise, you would pretty much have to say that men and women are different on some fundamental intellectual level. Is that what you are saying? Or are you just saying that preferential treatment is ok, just if it is your preference that is being treated?
  - bbctol 10y ago
    I don't think favoritism is responsible for all of men's achievements or actions? I don't see how that's even relevant? You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women (rather than men), and that that is unjust. I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that women are "taking" (i.e., unjustly acquiring) jobs (which would otherwise have been men's.)
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      > You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women I did not. However, since you bring it up, women statistically can not move up the ranks faster than men, right? There are about 50/50 men/women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals. So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right? I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around? I am suggesting that "we should hire more women" is every bit as sexist as "we should hire more men". If you want to get rid of all -isms, why not do blind hires based on resume/testing (weighted some way)?

throw-me-away 10y ago

And there you go, immediately assuming that women are only promoted for being women.

mhuffman 10y ago
Wow! Did you even read my comment? I was saying that opposite of that!
- throw-me-away 10y ago
  So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill? If so, I don't see it, and apparently neither does anyone else.
  - mhuffman 10y ago
    > So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill? That statistically can not be the case, right? There are about 50/50 men women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals. So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right? I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?
    - throw-me-away 10y ago
      #1: I don't believe the genders are the same in every way but genitals. There are lots of other physiological and psychological differences, so I've never bought the argument that every industry should have a perfect 50-50 representation. It wouldn't be surprising to me if there was some intrinsic advantage (either environmental or biological) women had over men as managers. #2: In a system in which women are discriminated against, it takes extra grit for women to push through, get hired, and do the work anyway. These are women who really want it very badly. The cream of the crop. Therefore it's not surprising to see them perform better than their male peers on average. #3: In a system in which women have historically been discriminated against, there will be lots of men with jobs they don't deserve. When women begin to enter the workforce in greater numbers, these men will be the first to lose their jobs to rising women. I could go on. There are plenty of reasons why women might be getting promoted faster. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's solely due to affirmative action quotas with no evidence to back that up. The world is more complex than that.

bbctol 10y ago

So it's not "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!" it's "Women are taking our jobs." Seriously, I don't see the distinction being made here.

mhuffman 10y ago
How about this distinction? If favoritism (or some sort of -ism) is/was responsible for all of men's achievements or stations -- isn't the converse true? Doesn't that mean that if women rise through the ranks faster than men, that there is preferential treatment? Otherwise, you would pretty much have to say that men and women are different on some fundamental intellectual level. Is that what you are saying? Or are you just saying that preferential treatment is ok, just if it is your preference that is being treated?
- bbctol 10y ago
  I don't think favoritism is responsible for all of men's achievements or actions? I don't see how that's even relevant? You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women (rather than men), and that that is unjust. I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that women are "taking" (i.e., unjustly acquiring) jobs (which would otherwise have been men's.)
  - mhuffman 10y ago
    > You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women I did not. However, since you bring it up, women statistically can not move up the ranks faster than men, right? There are about 50/50 men/women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals. So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right? I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around? I am suggesting that "we should hire more women" is every bit as sexist as "we should hire more men". If you want to get rid of all -isms, why not do blind hires based on resume/testing (weighted some way)?