4 ms·

Not gp commenter, but I think the point is that while yes, having more women (or <insert group here> for a different discussion) would be a good thing, they sho

by notamy 10y ago

Not gp commenter, but I think the point is that while yes, having more women (or <insert group here> for a different discussion) would be a good thing, they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE. Rather, would it not be better to have people with <whatever trait> who are incredibly competent / qualified / etc. who would be a better role model to those with <whatever trait> who want to get into the field?

projektir 10y ago
Incredibly competent is a very high bar to place on a group of people that already has trouble breaking in. That seems like a very good way to keep that group out. I think we already have this problem: it sometimes seems like nobody really wants women unless they are insanely competent. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You don't get to keep a giant population down and then just extract the occasional diamonds and ignore the rest. You need to pull the entire thing if you want those diamonds to be created. > they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE Why do people always state this as if it's the only possible reality? You go from "on minority basis ALONE" to "incredibly competent" in one fell swoop. I seriously hope you don't have people in your organization that are so incompetent that the only reason you could think of promoting them is because they're in an underprivileged group. Because otherwise, your statement doesn't make any sense. It's like you are already signing up for a reality where members of underprivileged group cannot possibly be the kinds of members you'd very much want to have. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that among the group of cool people that you have in your organization, maybe notice the women sometimes. And don't expect them to be "incredibly competent". Just competent enough. The same way you treat everyone else.
- notamy 10y ago
  Alright, I just wanna say that, as a college student, I probably have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so take it with a truckload of salt :) That being said, I do agree with what you say. I was guessing at what the (ggg)gp comment meant. I'm sure I could have worded it better, but I don't have much experience with any of this. Seriously, thank you for explaining it to me.

by notamy 10y ago

projektir 10y ago

Incredibly competent is a very high bar to place on a group of people that already has trouble breaking in. That seems like a very good way to keep that group out. I think we already have this problem: it sometimes seems like nobody really wants women unless they are insanely competent. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You don't get to keep a giant population down and then just extract the occasional diamonds and ignore the rest. You need to pull the entire thing if you want those diamonds to be created. > they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE Why do people always state this as if it's the only possible reality? You go from "on minority basis ALONE" to "incredibly competent" in one fell swoop. I seriously hope you don't have people in your organization that are so incompetent that the only reason you could think of promoting them is because they're in an underprivileged group. Because otherwise, your statement doesn't make any sense. It's like you are already signing up for a reality where members of underprivileged group cannot possibly be the kinds of members you'd very much want to have. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that among the group of cool people that you have in your organization, maybe notice the women sometimes. And don't expect them to be "incredibly competent". Just competent enough. The same way you treat everyone else.

notamy 10y ago
Alright, I just wanna say that, as a college student, I probably have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so take it with a truckload of salt :) That being said, I do agree with what you say. I was guessing at what the (ggg)gp comment meant. I'm sure I could have worded it better, but I don't have much experience with any of this. Seriously, thank you for explaining it to me.