4 ms·
You're missing my point. If women would naturally have more representation and were disadvantaged by this policy, and the policy was 100% effective (unheard of)
by bendmorris 9y ago
You're missing my point. If women would naturally have more representation and were disadvantaged by this policy, and the policy was 100% effective (unheard of), their representation would drop from >50% to 50% - it wouldn't somehow switch to women being significantly underrepresented. This assertion doesn't make sense based on the actual situation we have today.
- jorgemf 9y agoI don't know if I understand you. We have the situation we have today because "biases and unequal opportunities".
- michaelchisari 9y agoI think the person you're responding to is assuming that we are already at a decently fair equilibrium, and that diversity and other concepts and goals are disrupting that equilibrium. I think the biggest failure of communication around these issues is that a lot of people arguing against these programs are coming at it from the just world hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis