4 ms·

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.

by bbctol 10y ago

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)?
    - bbctol 10y ago
      So you have a problem with saying "we should hire more women," but you don't have a problem with women being given jobs because they are women? I am literally just confused. Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not?
      - mhuffman 10y ago
        > I am literally just confused Yes you are. You have completely confused everything I have written, even though I thought it was in plain English. > Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not? I think people should hire blindly using blind job tests and weighted experience/education. That would get rid of all "-isms". I imagine that people would still find something to bitch about, though.
        bbctol 10y ago
        Do you think that women are taking men's jobs?

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.

by 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)?
  - bbctol 10y ago
    So you have a problem with saying "we should hire more women," but you don't have a problem with women being given jobs because they are women? I am literally just confused. Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not?
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      > I am literally just confused Yes you are. You have completely confused everything I have written, even though I thought it was in plain English. > Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not? I think people should hire blindly using blind job tests and weighted experience/education. That would get rid of all "-isms". I imagine that people would still find something to bitch about, though.
      - bbctol 10y ago
        Do you think that women are taking men's jobs?