5 ms·

It doesn't strike you as at all strange that we deny reality in order to promote this goal? If 85% of soldiers are male (which they are), why should it be just

by Erik816 10y ago

It doesn't strike you as at all strange that we deny reality in order to promote this goal? If 85% of soldiers are male (which they are), why should it be just as likely that a child pictures as female soldier as a male soldier? Or do you believe that every occupation should in theory be split 50/50? That is going to lead to a lot of female nurses and school teachers who need to find new occupations.

neogodless 10y ago
It's not strange, because we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights, respect and various other issues related to gender. I don't think that this change in language is going to suddenly "change reality" in that there will be a dramatic shift in gender/occupation relationships, but that isn't the goal.
- chmln 10y ago
  > It's not strange, because we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights False. > respect and various other issues related to gender. And what do you propose? Make laws regarding "respect"? Respect is earned, not demanded. > I don't think that this change in language is going to suddenly "change reality" in that there will be a dramatic shift in gender/occupation relationships, but that isn't the goal. What's the goal of an inaccurate representation of an occupation then? Why resort to deception to cherish women? Ridiculous.
  - ashark 10y ago
    > Ridiculous. Are you kidding? That's the best part about it! Don't complain about this, embrace it! License to use unlikely pronouns in all situations is an opportunity for all your reading and writing to be slightly funnier, no matter how serious the topic. Maybe it aids the cause of equality, but it definitely makes language more fun. There's no down side.
  - disordinary 10y ago
    Statistically there is a strong bias against woman still, wages are lower than men and they are less likely to be in positions of authority. If we change the language around an occupation, and change the branding associated with it then we promote it as something safe for woman and people of transgender and start to subvert those biases that exist.
    - chmln 10y ago
      > strong bias against women Where exactly? > wages are lower than men Yes, Ive come across this study, which simply compares average wages. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't at all imply getting paid less for the same job. > less likely to be in positions of authority True. But why? In practice, many well-intentioned strides towards "equity" end up just lessening equality, and bringing gender, race, etc into consideration (gender, diversity quotas, etc). These are policies that practically translate to "reverse discrimination". And I reject this obsession with equity. Not all jobs need to have every portion of the population equally represented. The best qualified candidate should get the job, regardless of e.g. gender. Meritocracy is the only sane approach.
      - disordinary 10y ago
        But the best candidates can't get a look in because the entire system is geared towards white men, because white men are in positions of authority and are on boards the culture of an industry is geared towards their culture. If you strive for a culture in your business and industry that is more inclusive and less focused on one group then you will have more candidates to choose from. It's easy to say don't choose based on race when you will most likely be chosen, all things being equal, because you are culturally the best fit.
        chmln 10y ago
        Most importantly, employers in capitalist economies have no financial incentive to discriminate, given equally capable candidates. Race is intertwined with culture, values, and beliefs. With culture being an integral part of the company, it is only natural that employers will also consider personal qualifications of an applicant, all things equal.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  I agree that we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights, respect, and various other gender issues. But I don't know if _that_ explains the gender imbalance in jobs. Just as an example, I don't know that brick masonry is ever going to have a 50/50 male/female gender split. It's a very physically taxing job, and males tend to have stronger arm muscles for lifting and placing bricks all day.
hx87 10y ago
>85% of the time I see military servicemembers mentioned, the male pronoun is used. How is that "denying reality"? If anything, it's overexaggerating reality.

by Erik816 10y ago

neogodless 10y ago

It's not strange, because we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights, respect and various other issues related to gender. I don't think that this change in language is going to suddenly "change reality" in that there will be a dramatic shift in gender/occupation relationships, but that isn't the goal.

chmln 10y ago
> It's not strange, because we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights False. > respect and various other issues related to gender. And what do you propose? Make laws regarding "respect"? Respect is earned, not demanded. > I don't think that this change in language is going to suddenly "change reality" in that there will be a dramatic shift in gender/occupation relationships, but that isn't the goal. What's the goal of an inaccurate representation of an occupation then? Why resort to deception to cherish women? Ridiculous.
- ashark 10y ago
  > Ridiculous. Are you kidding? That's the best part about it! Don't complain about this, embrace it! License to use unlikely pronouns in all situations is an opportunity for all your reading and writing to be slightly funnier, no matter how serious the topic. Maybe it aids the cause of equality, but it definitely makes language more fun. There's no down side.
- disordinary 10y ago
  Statistically there is a strong bias against woman still, wages are lower than men and they are less likely to be in positions of authority. If we change the language around an occupation, and change the branding associated with it then we promote it as something safe for woman and people of transgender and start to subvert those biases that exist.
  - chmln 10y ago
    > strong bias against women Where exactly? > wages are lower than men Yes, Ive come across this study, which simply compares average wages. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't at all imply getting paid less for the same job. > less likely to be in positions of authority True. But why? In practice, many well-intentioned strides towards "equity" end up just lessening equality, and bringing gender, race, etc into consideration (gender, diversity quotas, etc). These are policies that practically translate to "reverse discrimination". And I reject this obsession with equity. Not all jobs need to have every portion of the population equally represented. The best qualified candidate should get the job, regardless of e.g. gender. Meritocracy is the only sane approach.
    - disordinary 10y ago
      But the best candidates can't get a look in because the entire system is geared towards white men, because white men are in positions of authority and are on boards the culture of an industry is geared towards their culture. If you strive for a culture in your business and industry that is more inclusive and less focused on one group then you will have more candidates to choose from. It's easy to say don't choose based on race when you will most likely be chosen, all things being equal, because you are culturally the best fit.
      - chmln 10y ago
        Most importantly, employers in capitalist economies have no financial incentive to discriminate, given equally capable candidates. Race is intertwined with culture, values, and beliefs. With culture being an integral part of the company, it is only natural that employers will also consider personal qualifications of an applicant, all things equal.
the_gastropod 10y ago
I agree that we're not at equilibrium when it comes to rights, respect, and various other gender issues. But I don't know if _that_ explains the gender imbalance in jobs. Just as an example, I don't know that brick masonry is ever going to have a 50/50 male/female gender split. It's a very physically taxing job, and males tend to have stronger arm muscles for lifting and placing bricks all day.

hx87 10y ago

>85% of the time I see military servicemembers mentioned, the male pronoun is used. How is that "denying reality"? If anything, it's overexaggerating reality.