3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoDo you think that women are taking men's jobs?