4 ms·

This is a situation where you must ask yourself the very difficult question of what is more important, individual freedom or equality? I think it goes beyond e

This is a situation where you must ask yourself the very difficult question of what is more important, individual freedom or equality? I think it goes beyond egalitarianism, because I certainly think any female who wants to become a highly-paid programmer should be able to do so simply by building merit, without any additional barriers. I also think that any person, male or female, has the right to decide what demographics their private company is composed of. The extreme of this, a world where all high-paying jobs are dished out by misogynists, is definitely a problem that needs to be solved, but I don't think we are actually living in that world currently.

Endy 8y ago
To paraphrase Judge Dredd on this one, The Law is what's most important. The law is written to oppose injustice and as part of doing so, inequity Follow the law. Work to have it changed if you think your public persona can survive fighting the EEOC's existence and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But follow the law first whether you like it or not, whether it's "profitable" or not.
PeterisP 8y ago
Yes, it surely is a situation where this question should be asked, however the question has been asked and "we the people" have decided (and written into law) that in this type of scenarios equality overrides individual freedom. In particular, it's been decided that in many cases (IIRC it starts to apply if the company has more than 15 employees) any person, male or female, does not have the right to decide what demographics their private company is composed of. That's it. This is the similar to "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose"; there is an inherent conflict between ability to choose demographics in your company and the ability of all demographics to get a fair job, we can't have both. We considered that this is a problem that needs to be solved and that such restrictions are going to be (part of) a solution. We may make different choices in future, but that's the one we currently have.
- kakarot 8y ago
  > the right to swing your fist ends at my nose It isn't really fair to compare this to that. One is a clear case of one's freedom interfering on the freedom or safety of another. I don't think this situation is nearly that black and white.

Endy 8y ago

To paraphrase Judge Dredd on this one, The Law is what's most important. The law is written to oppose injustice and as part of doing so, inequity Follow the law. Work to have it changed if you think your public persona can survive fighting the EEOC's existence and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But follow the law first whether you like it or not, whether it's "profitable" or not.

PeterisP 8y ago

Yes, it surely is a situation where this question should be asked, however the question has been asked and "we the people" have decided (and written into law) that in this type of scenarios equality overrides individual freedom. In particular, it's been decided that in many cases (IIRC it starts to apply if the company has more than 15 employees) any person, male or female, does not have the right to decide what demographics their private company is composed of. That's it. This is the similar to "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose"; there is an inherent conflict between ability to choose demographics in your company and the ability of all demographics to get a fair job, we can't have both. We considered that this is a problem that needs to be solved and that such restrictions are going to be (part of) a solution. We may make different choices in future, but that's the one we currently have.

kakarot 8y ago
> the right to swing your fist ends at my nose It isn't really fair to compare this to that. One is a clear case of one's freedom interfering on the freedom or safety of another. I don't think this situation is nearly that black and white.