4 ms·
Unless specific sexual organs are required for a job (eg surrogate mother, wet nurse), there should be no appreciable skew in any industry.
by mLuby 9y ago
Unless specific sexual organs are required for a job (eg surrogate mother, wet nurse), there should be no appreciable skew in any industry.
- gfodor 9y agoWell there is. So are you suggesting equal efforts should be expended to equalizing the representation of men in nursing and women in bricklaying, as we do other fields? They are skewed worse than most, so perhaps more effort should be put there? Are the skews in those fields equally unacceptable or somehow more acceptable? And if they are more acceptable, why? Based upon the public discourse, the commonly accepted answer seems to be they are actually more acceptable, since it's rare to hear about efforts for increasing men in nursing or women in construction work relative to other fields like medicine, law, or STEM. So the question reduces onto "why are some fields with gender skew more acceptable than others?" and answering that question is basically the key to everything.
- mLuby 9y agoI'm simply making an ethical claim. Any` skew sounds unacceptable to me. If we agree that any` skew is unacceptable, I'd suggest we take advantage of leverage and seek the greatest skew correction per resources allocated. That might well turn out to be in construction workers… `statistically significant
- gfodor 9y agoI guess there is also an inductive problem with not accepting any skew whatsoever. For example, the field of medicine has minimal skew, but if you drill into specialties, there is massive skew. At what level of granularity does skew stop mattering? It has to become noisy at some point, but good luck deciding on a concrete and consistent metric for determining where that is.