5 ms·

It's pretty sexist to suggest that women can't handle the same gender-neutral barriers as men. Sure, the extent of undergraduate education is excessive, but tha

It's pretty sexist to suggest that women can't handle the same gender-neutral barriers as men. Sure, the extent of undergraduate education is excessive, but that's because it's excessive for everyone, not because women are intellectually/professionally weak and need extra time to "feel comfortable."

rayiner 9y ago
It's not a gender neutral barrier.[1] It's facially gender neutral, but not gender neutral in fact. Forcing people to spend 7 years in unnecessary schooling before even starting on the 7-8 year grind of establishing one's career has a disparate impact on women, because it overlaps their biological childbearing window. Getting rid of that unnecessary school would be better for everyone, but especially women because it would get rid of unnecessary constraints on their career/family planning. [1] Say you had to be 5'7" to vote. That would be facially gender neutral, but not gender neutral in fact, since the average women is shorter than that while the average man is taller.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- S00kf1tRo11 9y ago
  That's a distinction without a difference, because in fact men experience the same biological childbearing window: it takes two. Unless we start comparing apples to oranges (e.g. women who want to reproduce and abandon the child vs. men who want to reproduce, have custody over, and raise... - or vice versa) the career/family planning difficulties bear substantially equally on both men and women. If career/family planning poses a greater burden on a sex, it's more likely men who lack the capacity to (apologies for the crudeness) "just go get knocked up." A man who wishes to have and raise a kid requires substantially more investment. He has to get a partner and keep them around for at least 9 months or indefinately. Indeed, it's that historical necessity of being able to "provide for a family" which imposed the burden of excessive career development. So, in summary, it's not like women can't have kids in college, or at least, it's not harder for them to do so than it is for men. In this case, women aren't actually shorter than men.

rayiner 9y ago

It's not a gender neutral barrier.[1] It's facially gender neutral, but not gender neutral in fact. Forcing people to spend 7 years in unnecessary schooling before even starting on the 7-8 year grind of establishing one's career has a disparate impact on women, because it overlaps their biological childbearing window. Getting rid of that unnecessary school would be better for everyone, but especially women because it would get rid of unnecessary constraints on their career/family planning. [1] Say you had to be 5'7" to vote. That would be facially gender neutral, but not gender neutral in fact, since the average women is shorter than that while the average man is taller.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
S00kf1tRo11 9y ago
That's a distinction without a difference, because in fact men experience the same biological childbearing window: it takes two. Unless we start comparing apples to oranges (e.g. women who want to reproduce and abandon the child vs. men who want to reproduce, have custody over, and raise... - or vice versa) the career/family planning difficulties bear substantially equally on both men and women. If career/family planning poses a greater burden on a sex, it's more likely men who lack the capacity to (apologies for the crudeness) "just go get knocked up." A man who wishes to have and raise a kid requires substantially more investment. He has to get a partner and keep them around for at least 9 months or indefinately. Indeed, it's that historical necessity of being able to "provide for a family" which imposed the burden of excessive career development. So, in summary, it's not like women can't have kids in college, or at least, it's not harder for them to do so than it is for men. In this case, women aren't actually shorter than men.