3 ms·

I feel for you, I do. I feel the same way about extracurricular events. But, I think what you're missing is that gender discrimination isn't black and white. I

I feel for you, I do. I feel the same way about extracurricular events. But, I think what you're missing is that gender discrimination isn't black and white. It's a matter of percentages. Let's say bagging out on weekend ski trips impacts 30% of men, and 42% of women, because women bear more responsibility for child care tasks, or because they are wary of spending a beer-fueled weekend snowed in with their male co-workers. Now multiply that by a dozen other independent circumstances where women are disadvantaged, even by a percent or two, and you quickly end up with an immense headwind. Again, that's not to say that you aren't impacted too. But in all likelihood, you come out ahead or even on some of the other dozen issues.

Grustaf 9y ago
If you suffer because of life choices like spending time with your children or not liking binge beer drinking, that may be unfortunate but is not "sexism". Even if it happens that women tend to make different choices. It's like if you have a policy of only hiring people with CS degrees. That's not sexist, just because most CS graduates are men. You can't hold the company responsible for the fact that women on average choose to spend more time with their family and are less inclined to stuy certain subjects. Unless you discriminate against them BECAUSE they are women, it's not sexism.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  Yes and no. Requiring a computer science degree is a fairly reasonable restriction to place on hiring, since it (at least on its face) correlates strongly with qualification for the job. However, requiring all your employees to go on a bro's ski weekend trip, or serving your free dinner at 8 PM every day when none of the women with families can stay for dinner, may have a disparate impact on employees without any correlation to their work performance. To turn up the contrast and make a semi-absurd argument, one could say, "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, but we ask all applicants to recite the Lord's Prayer from memory in their interview. Strangely, we never seem to hire any Hindu or Muslim applicants." OK, that's absurd, but what if you only recruit at universities that have extremely low female:male graduation ratios in their CS programs, when there are other programs with better balance? That's certainly not discriminatory on its face, but it has the same result as if you had discriminated overtly. Sexism may not be the right word (and I didn't use that word), but I do think it's important to look at the results of your policies and environment in totality to determine if you are treating women equitably. This is certainly the standard that the courts use for evaluating things like voting regulations -- look at the recent rulings on North Carolina's voting laws: actions like curtailing the number of weekend voting days that do not mention race at all are clearly crafted to reduce participation by black voters.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    It might not make business sense but surely that should be up to the owners of the company. If they really like ski trips why not? Is your suggestion to ban decisions that have disparate impact in terms of race or gender?

Grustaf 9y ago

If you suffer because of life choices like spending time with your children or not liking binge beer drinking, that may be unfortunate but is not "sexism". Even if it happens that women tend to make different choices. It's like if you have a policy of only hiring people with CS degrees. That's not sexist, just because most CS graduates are men. You can't hold the company responsible for the fact that women on average choose to spend more time with their family and are less inclined to stuy certain subjects. Unless you discriminate against them BECAUSE they are women, it's not sexism.

URSpider94 9y ago
Yes and no. Requiring a computer science degree is a fairly reasonable restriction to place on hiring, since it (at least on its face) correlates strongly with qualification for the job. However, requiring all your employees to go on a bro's ski weekend trip, or serving your free dinner at 8 PM every day when none of the women with families can stay for dinner, may have a disparate impact on employees without any correlation to their work performance. To turn up the contrast and make a semi-absurd argument, one could say, "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, but we ask all applicants to recite the Lord's Prayer from memory in their interview. Strangely, we never seem to hire any Hindu or Muslim applicants." OK, that's absurd, but what if you only recruit at universities that have extremely low female:male graduation ratios in their CS programs, when there are other programs with better balance? That's certainly not discriminatory on its face, but it has the same result as if you had discriminated overtly. Sexism may not be the right word (and I didn't use that word), but I do think it's important to look at the results of your policies and environment in totality to determine if you are treating women equitably. This is certainly the standard that the courts use for evaluating things like voting regulations -- look at the recent rulings on North Carolina's voting laws: actions like curtailing the number of weekend voting days that do not mention race at all are clearly crafted to reduce participation by black voters.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  It might not make business sense but surely that should be up to the owners of the company. If they really like ski trips why not? Is your suggestion to ban decisions that have disparate impact in terms of race or gender?