3 ms·

I don't see any complaints about "diversity" in female-dominated or minority-dominated professions. Then you haven't looked very hard. There are even programs

I don't see any complaints about "diversity" in female-dominated or minority-dominated professions. Then you haven't looked very hard. There are even programs with financial incentives, e.g. http://www.independentnurse.co.uk/news/new-bursary-introduced-by-coventry-university-to-increase-number-of-male-nurses/159398/ http://www.independentnurse.co.uk/news/new-bursary-introduce...

repolfx 8y ago
That story seems to come up a lot in these discussions. IIRC it appeared in a prior HN discussion of the same thing. The bursary in question is only £3,000 which is nothing. And the total fund is only £30,000 - so enough for 10 nurses. This doesn't even begin to compare with organised political lobbying on a continental scale to force women into jobs where people earn £3,000 for simply sitting in a single board meeting.
- icebraining 8y ago
  This doesn't even begin to compare with organised political lobbying on a continental scale to force women into jobs where people earn £3,000 for simply sitting in a single board meeting. Of course, because no such jobs exist from which men are mostly absent. You can't expect a response of the same size when the problem is nowhere near the same size.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    You're changing the subject. The original poster's point was that there isn't any real advocacy towards the benefit of men - in other words, that "diversity" doesn't mean diversity, it means benefits for women. You responded with an article about a sum of money so trivial it would cover 10 men for perhaps a couple of months depending on where they live. If that's the best you can find, this doesn't really disprove his point.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      No, parent said "any", not real; you introduced that term. Which is the kind of ambiguous language that impedes debate. If you're saying the efforts are not of the same absolute magnitude, then I would agree; my point is that they are similar relatively to the size of each problem. If you insist that diversity efforts are only "real" if the same effort is applied to solving two problems which are of clearly different orders of magnitude, then I can only say that I find your definition of "real" perplexing.
      - repolfx 8y ago
        I wouldn't define gender disparities as a problem to begin with, so arguments of the form "but the problem is big so it's OK if the actions are big" have no weight with me. What remains is that the word "diversity" doesn't mean diversity. It means focusing on getting women into positions of wealth and power - which you appear to be agreeing with me about, but for you it's an "ends justify the means" situation whereas for me and other posters here it isn't. If diversity advocates cared about diversity they'd attack all gender disparities with equal vigour because it'd be the disparity itself they care about. But obviously they don't: they only go after the ones where there are big benefits of money and power to be had. Gender disparities that favour women or that don't yield large streams of money and power are ignored. However they don't admit that. This is what rankles. Instead of talking about money and power they claim they merely want "gender diversity", which is false.
        icebraining 8y ago
        If diversity advocates cared about diversity they'd attack all gender disparities with equal vigour because it'd be the disparity itself they care about Yeah, to me this makes no sense. It's like saying that if you care about infant hungriness, you have to help with equal vigor both those starving in war-ridden areas and those in wealthy neighborhoods whose parents occasionally forget to give lunch money. Or that if you care about forest fires, you give the same number of fire engines to California and to Delaware. In my opinion, if you care about a problem, you dedicate more resources to where its effects are more pronounced.

repolfx 8y ago

That story seems to come up a lot in these discussions. IIRC it appeared in a prior HN discussion of the same thing. The bursary in question is only £3,000 which is nothing. And the total fund is only £30,000 - so enough for 10 nurses. This doesn't even begin to compare with organised political lobbying on a continental scale to force women into jobs where people earn £3,000 for simply sitting in a single board meeting.

icebraining 8y ago
This doesn't even begin to compare with organised political lobbying on a continental scale to force women into jobs where people earn £3,000 for simply sitting in a single board meeting. Of course, because no such jobs exist from which men are mostly absent. You can't expect a response of the same size when the problem is nowhere near the same size.
- repolfx 8y ago
  You're changing the subject. The original poster's point was that there isn't any real advocacy towards the benefit of men - in other words, that "diversity" doesn't mean diversity, it means benefits for women. You responded with an article about a sum of money so trivial it would cover 10 men for perhaps a couple of months depending on where they live. If that's the best you can find, this doesn't really disprove his point.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    No, parent said "any", not real; you introduced that term. Which is the kind of ambiguous language that impedes debate. If you're saying the efforts are not of the same absolute magnitude, then I would agree; my point is that they are similar relatively to the size of each problem. If you insist that diversity efforts are only "real" if the same effort is applied to solving two problems which are of clearly different orders of magnitude, then I can only say that I find your definition of "real" perplexing.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      I wouldn't define gender disparities as a problem to begin with, so arguments of the form "but the problem is big so it's OK if the actions are big" have no weight with me. What remains is that the word "diversity" doesn't mean diversity. It means focusing on getting women into positions of wealth and power - which you appear to be agreeing with me about, but for you it's an "ends justify the means" situation whereas for me and other posters here it isn't. If diversity advocates cared about diversity they'd attack all gender disparities with equal vigour because it'd be the disparity itself they care about. But obviously they don't: they only go after the ones where there are big benefits of money and power to be had. Gender disparities that favour women or that don't yield large streams of money and power are ignored. However they don't admit that. This is what rankles. Instead of talking about money and power they claim they merely want "gender diversity", which is false.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        If diversity advocates cared about diversity they'd attack all gender disparities with equal vigour because it'd be the disparity itself they care about Yeah, to me this makes no sense. It's like saying that if you care about infant hungriness, you have to help with equal vigor both those starving in war-ridden areas and those in wealthy neighborhoods whose parents occasionally forget to give lunch money. Or that if you care about forest fires, you give the same number of fire engines to California and to Delaware. In my opinion, if you care about a problem, you dedicate more resources to where its effects are more pronounced.