4 ms·

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

by throw-me-away 10y ago

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.

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.